Full text of "James VI and the Gowrie mystery"

See other formats

ill!

REF 941.061

LANG» ANDREW*

JAMES VT AND THE COWRIE

MYSTERY

MNBR 931242541

HSS

The New York
Public Library

r, Lenox and Tilden Foundat.ons

NY PUBLIC LIBRARY THE BRANCH LIBRARIES

3 3333 06024 0849

THE NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY MM

MID-MANHATTAN LIBRARY

455 FIFTH AVv-NUK

NEW YORK, fcEW YORK 10016

NOT TO BE TAKEN FROM THE ROOM

•;

JAMES VI

AND

THE GOWKIE MYSTEEY

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

A MONK OF FIFE. Crown 8vo. Bs. Qd.

ANGLING SKETCHES. Crown 8vo. 3s. Qd.

BALLADS OF BOOKS. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.

BAN AND ARRIERE BAN. Fcp. Svo. [Out of print.

BOOK OF DREAMS AND GHOSTS. Crown Svo. 3s. Qd.

BOOKS AND BOOKMEN. Fcp. Svo. 2s. Qd. net.

COCK LANE AND COMMON-SENSE. Crown Svo. 3s. Qd.

CUSTOM AND MYTH Crown Svo. 3s. Qd.

ESSAYS IN LITTLE. Crown Svo. 2s. Qd.

GRASS OF PARNASSUS. Fcp. Svo. 2s. Qd. net.

HOMER AND THE EPIC. Crown Svo. 9s. net.

LETTERS ON LITERATURE. Fcp. Svo. 2s. Qd. net.

LETTERS TO DEAD AUTHORS. Fcp. Svo. 2s. Qd. tut.

MAGIC AND RELIGION. Svo. 10s. Qd. net.

MODERN MYTHOLOGY. Svo. 9s.

MYTH, RITUAL, AND RELIGION. 2 vols. crown Svo. 7s.

OLD FRIENDS. Fcp. Svo. 2s. Qd. net.

PICKLE THE SPY. Svo. [Out of print.

THE COMPANIONS OF PICKLE. Svo. 16s.

ST. ANDREWS. Svo. [Out of print.

THE MYSTERY OF MARY STUART. Svo. ISs. net.

THE MAKING OF RELIGION. Crown Svo. 5s. net.

LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., 39 Paternoster Row, London

New York and Bombay.

THE COWRIE COAT OF ARMS
In the 'Workman' MS.

PROPERTY OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK.

JAMES VI

AND

THE COWRIE MYSTERY

ANDREW LANG

WITH COWRIE'S COAT OT ARMS IN COLOUR, 2 PHOTOGRAVURE PORTRAITS

AND OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS

LONGMANS, GKEEN, AND CO,

39 PATEKNOSTER ROW, LONDON
NEW YORK AND BOMBAY

1902

All rights reserve^-

'^ Kinge •>),

9;>i Ki

X *

«ce

c '

<•

c
c

c *

c
<

* c

r C

'v c

'c*

f
t
c

£ ce

' i
c t

c c

< l

c lc c .<:

c <

< c

-' < ' c

THE LADY CECILY BAILLIE- HAMILTON

THIS INQUIRY
IS GRATEFULLY DEDICATED

INTRODUCTION

old Scottish lady, four generations ago, used to
say, 'It is a great comfort to think that, at the Day
of Judgment, we shall know the whole truth about the
Gowrie Conspiracy at last.' Since the author, as a
child, read ' The Tales of a Grandfather,' and shared
King Jamie's disappointment when there was no pot
of gold, but an armed man, in the turret, he had sup-
posed that we do know all about the Gowrie Con-
spiracy, that it was a plot to capture the King, carry
him to Fastcastle, and ' see how the country would
take it,' as in the case of the Gunpowder Plot. But
just as Father Gerard has tried to show that the Gun-
powder affair may have been Cecil's plot, so modern
historians doubt whether the Gowrie mystery was
not a conspiracy by King James himself. Mr. Hume
Brown appears rather to lean to this opinion, in
the second volume of his ' History of Scotland,' and
Dr. Masson, in his valuable edition of the ' Eegister of
the Privy Council,' is also dubious. Mr. Louis Barbe,
in his ' Tragedy of Gowrie House,' holds a brief against
the King. Thus I have been tempted to study this

viii THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

4auld misterie' afresh, and have convinced myself
that such historians as Sir Walter Scott, Mr. Frazer
Tvtler, and Mr. Hill Burton were not wrong ; the

plot was not the King's conspiracy, but the desperate
venture of two very young men. The precise object
remains obscure in detail, but the purpose was probably
to see how a deeply discontented Kirk and country
' would take it.'

In working at this fascinatingly mysterious puzzle,
I have made use of manuscript materials hitherto
uncited. The most curious of these, the examina-
tions and documents of the ' country writer,' Sprot,
had been briefly summarised in Sir William Fraser's
'Memorials of the Earls of Haddington.' My attention
was drawn to this source by the Eev. John Anderson,
of the General Eegister House, who aided Sir
William Fraser in the compilation of his book. The
Earl of Haddington generously permitted me to have
copies made of the documents, which Lady Cecily
Baillie-Hamiltoii was kind enough to search for and

< — s

rediscover in an enormous mass of documents be-
queathed by the learned first Earl.

On reading the Calendars of the Hatfield MSS.

I had observed that several letters by the possible
conspirator, Logan of Eestalrig, were in the posses-
sion of the Marquis of Salisbury, who was good
enough to permit photographs of some specimens to
be taken. These were compared, by Mr. Anderson,
with the alleged plot-letters of Logan at Edinburgh ;
while photographs of the plot-letters were compared

INTRODUCTION ix

with Logan's authentic letters at Hatfield, by Mr.
Gunton, to whose acuteness and energy I owe the
greatest gratitude. The results of the comparison
settle the riddle of three centuries.

The other hitherto unused manuscripts are in
no more recondite place than the Eecord Office in
London, and I do not know how they managed to
escape the notice of previous writers on the subject.
To Dr. Masson's 'Eegister of the Privy Council' I
am indebted for the sequel of the curious adventure
of Mr. Eobert Oliphant, whose part in the mystery,
hitherto overlooked, is decisive, if we accept the
evidence — a point on which the reader must form his
own opinion. For copies made at the Eecord Office
I have to thank the care and accuracy of Miss E. M.
Thompson.

To Mr. Anderson's learning and zest in this
6 longest and sorest chase ' (as King James called his
hunt on the morning of the fatal August 5) I am
under the deepest obligations. The allurements of a
romantic conclusion have never tempted him to leave
the strait path of historical impartiality.

I have also to thank Mr. Henry Paton for his
careful copies of the Haddington MSS., extracts from
the Treasurer's accounts, and other researches.

For permission to reproduce the picture of Fast-
castle by the Eev. Mr. Thomson of Duddingston, I
have to thank the kindness of Mrs. Blackwood-Porter.
The painting, probably of about 1820, when compared

X THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

with the photograph of to-day, shows the destruction

wrought bv wind and weather in the old fortalice.

> j

My obligations to Sir James Balfonr Panl (Lyon
King of Arms) for information on points of Heraldry
ought to be gratefully acknowledged.

Since this book was written, the author has had
an opportunity to read an Apology for the Kuthvens
by the late Andrew Bisset. This treatise is apt to
escape observation : it is entitled ' Sir Walter Scott,'
and occupies pp. 172-303 in 'Essays on Historical
Truth,' long out of print.1 On many points Mr. Bisset
agreed with Mr. Barbe in his 'Tragedy of Gowrie
House,' and my replies to Mr. Barbe serve for his
predecessor. But Mr. Bisset found no evidence that
the King had formed a plot against Gowrie. By a
modification of the contemporary conjecture of Sir
William Bowes he suggested that a brawl between

t_-^ t- /

the Kino- and the Master of Euthven occurred in the

turret, occasioned bv an atrocious insult offered to

**'

the Master by the King. This hypothesis, for various
reasons, does not deserve discussion. Mr. Bisset ap-
peared to attribute the Sprot papers to the combined
authorship of the King and Sir Thomas Hamilton :
which our new materials disprove. A critic who,
like Mr. Bisset, accused the King of poisoning Prince
Henry, and many other persons, was not an unpreju-
diced historian.

1 Longmans, Green, & Co., 1871.

CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION vii

I. THE MYSTERY AND THE EVIDENCE ... 1

II. THE SLAUGHTER OF THE KUTHVENS . . . . 11

III. THE KING'S OWN NARRATIVE 35

IV. THE KING'S NARRATIVE. II ... . . 55
V. HENDERSON'S NARRATIVE . ... 60

VI. THE STRANGE CASE OF MR. EGBERT OLIPHAXT . . 71

VII. THE CONTEMPORARY KUTHVEN VINDICATION ... 80

VIII. THE THEORY OF AN ACCIDENTAL BRAWL . . . 94

IX. CONTEMPORARY CLERICAL CRITICISM . . 99

X. POPULAR CRITICISM OF THE DAY . . . Ill

XI. THE KING AND THE EUTHVENS 118

XII. LOGAN OF EESTALRIG . . .... 148

XIII. THE SECRETS OF SPROT 168

XIV. THE LAIRD AND THE NOTARY 182

XV. THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF THE NOTARY . . . 201

XVI. WHAT is LETTER IV ?. . . . . . 232

XVII. INFERENCES AS TO THE CASKET LETTERS 240

xii THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

APPENDICES

PAGE

A. THE FRONTISPIECE .... . 245

B. THE CONTEMPORARY RUTHVEN VINDICATION . . . . 252

C. FIVE LETTERS FORGED BY SPROT, AS FROM LOGAN . . 257

INDEX . . 265

ILLUSTBATIONS

IN COLOURS
GOWRIE'S COAT OF ARMS Frontispiece

PHOTOGRAVURES

JAMES VI . . . . . . . . . . to face p. 4

From the picture painted by Paul Van Somer (1621) now in the
National Portrait Gallery

QUEEN ANNE „ 188

From a painting by Paul Van Somer in Queen Anne's Room,
St. James's Palace

OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS
FALKLAND PALACE „ 33

From a Photograph by J. Valentine & Sons, Dundee

DIRLETON CASTLE „ 82

From a Photograph by J. Valentine & Sons, Dundee

FALKLAND PALACE : THE COURTYARD .... .,116

From a Photograph by J. Valentine <L- Sons, Dundee

BESTALRIG HOUSE „ 150

From a Photograph by W. J. Hay, Edinburgh

EESTALRIG VILLAGE „ 150

From a Photograph by W. J. Hay, Edinburgh

FASTCASTLE (circ. 1820) „ 154

From a picture by the Rev. Mr. Thomson, of Duddingston, in the
possession of Mrs. Blackwood-Porter

xiv THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

FASTCASTLE to face p. 176

From a Photograph by J. Valentin? <(• Sons, Dundee

FASTCASTLE ,, 192

From a Photograph by J. Valentine & Sons, Dundee

HANDWRITING OF LOGAN (January 1585-6) ... „ 196

HAND OF LOGAN AS FORGED BY SPROT (second page

of Letter IV) ,,202

HANDWRITING OF SPROT (July 5, 1608) .... ,, 210

PLANS

SITUATION AND TOPOGRAPHY OF GOWRIE HOUSE . . . p- 15

INTERIOR OF GOWRIE HOUSE . . . . . . ,, 17

THE GALLERY CHAMBER AND THE TURRET, GOWRIE HOUSE . „ 59

CITY OF NEW YORK,

THE

GOWEIE MYSTERY

THE MYSTEEY AND THE EVIDENCE

THERE are enigmas in the annals of most peoples ;
riddles put by the Sphinx of the Past to the curious
of the new generations. These questions do not
greatly concern tlje- scientific '.historian, who is busy
with constitute Qji-making, statistics,, progress, degene-
ration, in short with human evolution. These high
matters,, these streams of tendency, form the staple of

history, but the problems of personal character and
action still interest some inquiring^ minds. Among
these enigmas nearly the most^.o-fcscure, 'TheGowrie
Conspiracy,' is our topic., \ - '

This affair is ope of , the haunting mysteries of
the past, one of the problems that nobody has solved.
The events occurred in 1600, but the interest which
they excited was so keen that belief in the guilt or
innocence of the two noble brothers who perished in
an August afternoon, was a party shibboleth in the
Wars of the Saints against the Malignants, the strife

2 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

of Cavaliers and Roundheads. The problem has ever
since attracted the curious, as do the enigma of
Perkin Warbeck, the true character of Eichard III,
the real face behind ' The Iron Mask,' the identity of
the False Pucelle, and the innocence or guilt of Mary
Stuart.

In certain respects the Gowrie mystery is neces-
sarily less attractive than that of ' the fairest and
most pitiless Queen on earth.' There is no woman in
the story. The world, of course, when the Euthvens
died, at once acted on the maxim, cherchez la femme.
The woman in the case, men said, was the beautiful
Queen, Anne of Denmark, wife of James VI. That
fair and frivolous dame, ' very very woman,' cer-
tainly did her best, by her behaviour, to encourage

c ' ' c f I>CA

the belief that she was the cau£'e; 'of these sorrows.

C ,. t r < ( . ( t

-fr-v. '

Even so, when the Bonny Earl Moray — the tallest
and most beautiful man in Scotland — died like a lion
dragged down by wolves, the people sang :

He was i brave gallant,

And he rode at the ring,
And the Bonny Earl Moray,

He mighu have been the Kmg.

i
<,

He was a brave gallant,

And he rode at the glove,
And the Bonny Earl Moray

He was the Queen's love.

On one side was a beautiful Queen mated with
James VI, a pedant and a clown. On the other
side were, first the Bonny Earl, then the Earl of

THE MYSTERY AND THE EVIDENCE 3

Gowrie, both young, brave, handsome, both suddenly
slain by the King's friends : none knew why. The
opinion of the godly, of the Kirk, of the people, and
even of politicians, leaped to the erroneous conclusion
that the young men perished, like Konigsmarck,
because they were beautiful and beloved, and be-
cause the Queen was fair and kind, and the King
was ugly, treacherous, and jealous. The rumour also
ran, at least in tradition, that Gowrie ' might have
been the King,' an idea examined in Appendix A.
Here then was an explanation of the slaying of
the Euthvens on the lines dear to romance. The
humorous King Jamie (who, if he was not always
sensible, at least treated his nighty wife with abun-
dance of sense) had, to, play *£he. part of King Mark

• • • j •

of Cornwall to.Oowjie's Si^* -Tristram. For this

«. • %* * • * * * •>
theory, we shall? /^Ow', no evitfetiqe' exists, and, in

'looking for; the '.woman,' fancy, found two men.
The Queen 5'was "alternately said °,to iQve Gowrie,
and to love Bis.' Brother, the Master* bf,1 Euthven, a

. •

* * A 9

lad of nineteen —-if she did not lovfe both at once.

»* • • • • •

It is curious tTastt/the affair did not ^ive rise to

• ,• .'..*•••• . •••• ••* •

ballads ; if it did; 'none0 has reacHe/d'.us.

' ' • • « • • 9

• * * • * «

In truth there was, ,np m ^fr'm'an in the case, and
this of course makes the mystery much less excit-
ing than that of Mary Stuart, for whom so many
swords and pens have been drawn. The interest
of character and of love is deficient. Of Gowrie's
character, and even of his religion, apart from his
learning and fascination, we really know almost

B 2

4 THE COWRIE MYSTERY

nothing. Did he cherish that strongest and most sacred
of passions, revenge ; had he brooded over it in Italy,
where revenge was subtler and craftier than in Scot-
land ? Did this passion blend with the vein of fanati-
cism in his nature ? Had he been biding his time,
and dreaming, over sea, boyish dreams of vengeance

O ' •/ C

and ambition ? All this appears not improbable, and
would, if true, explain all ; but evidence is defective.
Had Gowrie really cherished the legacy of revenge
for a father slain, and a mother insulted ; had he
studied the subtleties of Italian crime, pondered over
an Italian plot till it seemed feasible, and communi-
cated his vision to the boy brother whom he found
at home — the mystery would be transparent.

As to Kino- James, 'we krirhv him well. The babe

^—^ ( _ f f

'wronged in hi$\ mother's w-bnib,;'' threatened by
conspirators before his birth ; • terrified by a harsh
tutor as a child ; bullied ; preached at ; captured ;
insulted ; ruled now by debauched favourites, now
by godly ruffians ; James naturally grew up a dis-
sembler, and be'trayed his fa ther's- murderer with a
kiss. He was frightened into 'deceit: he could be
cruel ; he became, "as' lar as he might, a tyrant. But,
though not the abject, .coward 'of tradition, James
(as he himself observed) was never the man to risk
his life in a doubtful brawl, on the chance that his
enemies might perish while lie escaped. For him a
treachery of that kind, an affair of sword and dagger
fights on staircases and in turrets and chambers,

in the midst of a town of doubtful loyalty, had

]

£•

VI.

' t tt Site , \n/trtttrrft/f>f/~firi/~.'//i///

//-//.

THE MYSTERY AND THE EVIDENCE 5

certainly no attractions. Moreover, he had a sense
of humour. This has been the opinion of our best
historians, Scott, Mr. Tytler, and Mr. Hill Burton;
but enthusiastic writers have always espoused the
cause of the victims, the Euthvens, so young, brave,
handsome ; so untimely slain, as it were on their own
hearthstone. Other authors, such as Dr. Masson in
our own day, and Mr. S. E. Gardiner, have abstained
from a verdict, or have attempted the via media ;
have leaned to the idea that the Euthvens died
in an accidental brawl, caused by a nervous and
motiveless fit of terror on the part of the King.
Thus the question is unsettled, the problem is un-
solved. Why did the jolly hunt at Falkland, in the
bright August morning, end in the sanguinary scuffle in
the town house at Perth ; the deaths of the Euthvens ;
the tumult in the town ; the King's homeward ride
through the dark and dripping twilight ; the laying
of the dead brothers side by side, while the old
family servant weeps above their bodies ; and the
wailing of the Queen and her ladies in Falkland
Palace, when the torches guide the cavalcade into the
palace court, and the strange tale of slaughter is
variously told, c the reports so fighting together that
no man could have any certainty ' ? Where lay the
actual truth ?

This problem, with which the following pages are
concerned, is much darker and more complex than
that of the guilty ' Casket Letters ' attributed to Mary.
Queen of Scots. The Queen did write these, in the

6 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

madness of a criminal passion ; or she wrote parts
of them, the rest beini? srarbleti or forced. In either

*-_^ *v-. ^— »•

case, her motives, and the motives of the possible
forgers, are distinct, and are human. The Queen
was in love with one man, and hated another to the
death ; or her enemies desired to prove that these
were her moods. Absolute certainty escapes us, but,
either way, motives and purposes are intelligible.
Not so with the Gowrie mystery. The King,

Marv's son, after hunting for four hours, rides to

••

visit Lord Gowrie, a neighbour. After luncheon, that
nobleman and his brother are slain, in their own house,
bv the Kind's attendants. The Kiner srives his version

•, c c

of the events instantly ; he never varies from it in
any essential point, but the story is almost incredible.
On the other hand, the slain men cannot speak, and
only one of them, if both were innocent, could have
told what occurred. But one of their apologists, at
the time, produced a version of the events which is,
beyond all doubt, boldly mendacious. It was easy
to criticise and ridicule the King's version ; but the
opposite version, hitherto unknown to historians,
destroys itself by its conspicuous falsehoods. In the
nature of the case, as will appear, no story accounting
for such wild events could be easily credible, so extra-
ordinary, motiveless, and inexplicable do the circum-
stances appear. If we try the theory that the King
wove a plot, we are met by the fact that his plot could
not have succeeded without the voluntary and vehe-
ment collaboration of one of his victims, a thing that

THE MYSTERY AND THE EVIDENCE 7

no man could have reckoned on. If we adopt the
idea that the victims had laid a trap for the King, we
have only a vague surmise as to its aim, purpose, and
method. The later li^ht which seemed to fall on the

affair, as we shall see, only darkens what was already
obscure. The inconceivable iniquity of the Govern-
ment, at a later date, reflects such discredit on all
concerned on their side, that we might naturally,
though illogically, be inclined to believe that, from
the first, the King was the conspirator. But that^
we shall find, was almost, or quite, a physical im-
possibility.

Despite these embroilments, I am, in this case, able
to reach a conclusion satisfactory to myself, a thing
which, in the affair of the Casket Letters and Queen
Mary, I was unable to do.1 There is no doubt, in my
own mind, that the Earl of Gowrie and his brother
laid a trap for King James, and fell into the pit which
they had digged.

To what precise end they had plotted to seize the
King's person, what they meant to do with him when
they had got him, must remain matter of conjecture.
But that they intended to seize him, I have no doubt
at all.

These pages, on so old and vexed a problem,
would not have been written, had I not been fortu-
nate enough to obtain many unpublished manuscript
materials. Some of these at least clear up the
secondary enigma of the sequel of the problem of

1 See The Mystery of Mary Stuart. Longmans, 1901.

8 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

1600. Different readers will probably draw different
conclusions from some of the other documents, but
perhaps nobody will doubt that they throw strange
new lights on Scottish manners and morals.

The scheme adopted here is somewhat like that
of Mr. Browning's poem, ' The Eing and the Book.'
The personages tell their own stories of the same set
of events, in which they were more or less intimately
concerned. This inevitably entails some repetition,
but I am unable to find any plan less open to
objection.

It must, of course, be kept in mind that all the
evidence is of a suspicious nature. The King, if he
were the conspirator, or even if innocent, had to
clear himself; and, frankly, his Majesty's word was
not to be relied upon. However, he alone was
cross-examined, by an acute and hostile catechist, and
that upon oath, though not in a court of justice. The
evidence of his retinue, and of some other persons
present, was also taken on oath, three months after
the events, before a Parliamentary Committee, ' The
Lords of the Articles.' We shall see that, nine years
later, a similar Committee was deceived shamelessly
by the King's Government, he himself being absent
in England. But the nature of the evidence, in the
second case, was entirely different : it did not rest
on the sworn testimony of a number of nobles,
gentlemen, and citizens, but on a question of hand-
writing, comparatio literarum, as in the case of the
Casket Letters. That the witnesses in 1600 did not

THE MYSTERY AND THE EVIDENCE 9

perjure themselves, in the trial which followed on
the slaughter of the Euthvens, is what I have to
argue. Next, we have the evidence, taken under
torture, of three of the slain Earl's retainers, three
weeks after the events. No such testimony is now
reckoned of value, but it will be shown that the
statements made by the tortured men only com-
promise the Earl and his brother incidentally, and in
a manner probably not perceived by the deponents
themselves. They denied all knowledge of a plot,
disclaimed belief in a plot by the Earl, and let out
what was suspicious in a casual way, without
observing the import of their own remarks.

Finally, we have the evidence of the only living
man, except the King, who was present at the central
point of the occurrences. That this man was a most
false and evasive character, that he was doubtless
amenable to bribes, that he was richly rewarded, I
freely admit. But I think it can be made probable,
by evidence hitherto overlooked, that he really was
present on the crucial occasion, and that, with all
allowances for his character and position, his testi-
mony fits into the facts, while, if it be discarded,
no hypothesis can account for him, and his part in
the adventure. In short, the King's tale, almost
incredible as it appears, contains the only explanation
which is not demonstrably impossible. To this con-
clusion, let me repeat, I am drawn by no sentiment
for that unsentimental Prince, 'gentle King Jamie.'

He was not the man to tell the truth, ' if he could

10 THE GOWBIE MYSTERY

think of anything better.' But, where other corro-
boration is impossible, by the nature of the circum-
stances, facts corroborate the King's narrative. His
version ' colligates ' them ; though extravagant they
become not incoherent. No other hypothesis pro-
duces coherency : each guess breaks down on de-
monstrated facts.

THE SLAUGHTER OF THE RUTHVENS

IN the month of August 1600 his Majesty the King
of Scotland, James, sixth of that name, stood in more
than common need of the recreation of the chase.
Things had been going contrary to his pleasure in all
directions. ' His dearest sister,' Queen Elizabeth (as
he pathetically said), seemed likely ' to continue as
long as Sun or Moon,' and was in the worst of humours.
Her minister, Cecil, was apparently more ill disposed
towards the Scottish King than usual, while the
minister's rival, the Earl of Essex, had been suggest-
ing to James plans for a military demonstration on
the Border. Money was even more than normally
scarce ; the Highlands were more than common unruly ;
stories of new conspiracies against the King's liberty
were flying about ; and, above all, a Convention of the
Estates had just refused, in June, to make a large
grant of money to his Majesty. It was also irritating
that an old and trusted servant, Colonel Stewart,
wished to quit the country, and take English service
against the Irish rebels. This gentleman, sixteen
years before, had been instrumental in the arrest and
execution of the Earl of Gowrie ; the new young Earl,

12 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

son of the late peer, had just returned from the Con-
tinent to Scotland, and Colonel Stewart was afraid
that Gowrie might wish to avenge his father. There-

O o

fore he desired to take service in Ireland.

With all these frets, the King needed the refresh-
ment of hunting the buck in his park of Falkland.
He ordered his own hunting costume ; it was
delivered early in August, and (which is singular)
was paid for instantly. Green English cloth was
the basis of his apparel, and five ounces of silver
decorated his second-best ' socks.' His boots had
velvet tops, embroidered ; his best ' socks ' were
adorned with heavy gold embroidery; he even
bought a new horse. His gentlemen, John Eamsay,
John Murray, George Murray, and John Auchmuty,
were attired, at the Eoyal expense, in coats of green
cloth, like the King.1

Thus equipped, the Eoyal party rose early on the
morning of Tuesday, August 5, left the pleasant
house of Falkland, with its strong round towers that

had lately protected James from an attack by his
cousin, wild Frank Stewart, the Earl of Bothwell ; and
rode to the stables in the park ; ' the weather,' says his
Majesty, 'being wonderful pleasant and seasonable.' 2
' All the jolly hunt was there ; ' ' Tell True ' and the
other hounds were yelping at the limits of their
leashes ; the Duke of Lennox and the Earl of Mar,

1 Extracted from the Treasurer's Accounts, July, August, 1600. MS.

2 The King's Narrative, Pitcairn's Criminal Trials of Scotland,
ii. 210.

THE SLAUGHTER OF THE RUTH YENS 13

friends of James from his youth, and honourable
men, were the chief nobles in the crowd ; wherein
were two or three of the loyal family of Erskine,
cousins of Mar, and a Dr. Herries, remarkable for a
club foot.

At the stables, hacks were discarded, hunters
were led out, men were mounting, the King had his
foot in the stirrup, when a young gentleman, the
Master of Euthven, rode swiftly up from the town of
Falkland. He had trotted over, very early, from the
town house, at Perth (some twelve or fourteen miles
away), of his brother, the Earl of Gowrie. He was
but nineteen years of age, tall, handsome, and brother
of the Queen's favourite maid of honour, Mrs.
Beatrix Euthven. That he was himself one of the
Gentlemen of the Household has often been said, but
we find no trace of money spent for him in the
Eoyal accounts : in fact he had asked for the place,
but had not yet obtained it.1 However, if we may
believe the Eoyal word (which is a matter of choice),
James ' loved the young Master like a brother.'

The Master approached the King, and entered
into conversation with him. James's account of what
he had to say must be given later. For the present
we may be content with the depositions on oath,
which were made later, at a trial in November, by the
attendants of the King and other witnesses. Among
these was the Duke of Lennox, who swore to the
following effect, '-'hey hunted their buck, and killed

1 The King's Narrative, ut supra. Treasurer's Accounts, MS.

14 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

him. The King, in place of trotting back to lunch at
the House of Falkland (to which the progress of the
chase had led the sportsmen round in a circle), bade
the Duke accompany him to Perth, some twelve
miles away, ' to speak with the Earl of Gowrie.' His
Majesty then rode on. Lennox despatched his groom
for his sword, and for a fresh horse (another was
sent after the King) ; he then mounted and followed.
When he rejoined James, the King said ' You cannot
guess what errand I am riding for ; I am going to
get a treasure in Perth. The Master of Euthven'
(' Mr. Alexander Euthven ') i has informed me that he
has found a man with a pitcher full of gold coins of
great sorts.' James also asked Lennox what he
deemed of the Master, whose manner he reckoned
very strange. 'Nothing but an honest, discreet
gentleman,' said the Duke. The King next gave
details about the treasure, and Lennox said he
thought the tale ' unlikely,' as it was, more or less.
James then bade Lennox say nothing on the matter
to Euthven, who wanted it to be a secret. At about
a mile from Perth, the Master galloped forward, to
warn his brother, the Earl, who met the Eoyal party,
on foot, with some companions, near the town.1 This
was about one o'clock in the afternoon.

The Eoyal party, of thirteen nobles and gentle-
men, then entered the Earl's house. It faced the
street, as the House of Falkland also does, and, at
the back, had gardens running down to the Tay.

1 Lennox in Pitcairn, ii. 171-174.

THE SLAUGHTER OF THE RUTHVENS

It is necessary to understand the situation and
topography of Gowrie House. Passing down South
Street, or ' Shoe Gait,' the chief street in Perth, then
a pretty little town, you found it crossed at right
angles by a street called, on the left, Water Gate, on
the right, Spey Gate. Immediately fronting you, as
you came to the end of South Street, was the gateway

of Gowrie House, the garden wall continuing towards
your right. On your left were the houses in Water
Gate, occupied by rich citizens and lairds. Many
will understand the position if they fancy themselves
walking down one of the streets which run from the
High Street, at Oxford, towards the river. You then
find Merton College facing you, the street being

16 THE COWRIE MYSTERY

continued to the left in such old houses as Beam Hall.
The £>'ate of Gowrie House fronted you, as does the

o »/

gate-tower of Merton, and led into a quadrangle, the
front court, called The Close. Behind Gowrie House
was the garden, and behind that ran the river Tay,
as the Isis flows behind Merton and Corpus. Entering
the quadrangle of Gowrie House you found, on your
right and facing you, a pile of buildings like an inverted
L (i). The basement was occupied by domestic
offices : at the angle of the "| was the main entrance.
On your right, and much nearer to you than the main
entrance, a door opened on a narrow spiral staircase,
so dark that it was called the Black Turnpike.

As to the interior, entering the main doorway you
found yourself in the hall. A door led thence into
a smaller dining-room on the left. The hall itself

had a door and external stair giving on the garden
behind. The chief staircase, which vou entered from

the hall, led to the Great Gallery, built and decorated
by the late Earl. This extended above the dining-
room and the hall, and, to the right, was separated
by a partition and a door from the large upstairs
room on the same flat called ' The Gallery Chamber.'
At the extremity of this chamber, on the left hand as
vou advanced, was a door leading into a ' round,' or

«/ o

turret, or little circular-shaped ' study,' of which one
window seems to have looked to the gateway, the
other to the street. People below in the street
could see a man looking out of the turret window.
A door in the gallery chamber gave on the narrow

THE SLAUGHTER OF THE RUTHVENS

£ul

'Jo co

18 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

staircase called ' The Black Turnpike,' by which the
upper floor might be reached by any one from the
quadrangle, without entering the main door, and
going up the broad chief staircase. Thus, to quote a
poet who wrote while Gowrie House was extant (in
1638):

The Palace kythes, may nam'd be Perth's White Hall
With orchards like these of Hesperides.

The palace was destroyed, to furnish a site for a
gaol and county buildings, in 1807, but the most
interesting parts had long been in ruins.1

In 1774, an antiquary, Mr. Cant, writes that the
palace, after the Forty Five, was converted into
artillery barracks. 'We see nothing but the remains
of its former grandeur.' The coats of arms of ' the
nobility and gentlemen of fortune,' who dwelt in Spey
Gate and Water Gate, were, in 1774, still visible on
the walls of their houses. A fragment of the old
palace is said to exist to-day in the Gowrie Inn. Into
this palace the King was led by Gowrie : he was
taken to the dining chamber on the left of the great
hall ; in the hall itself Lennox, Mar, and the rest of
the retinue waited and wearied, for apparently no
dinner had been provided, and even a drink for his
thirsty Majesty was long in coming. Gowrie and
the Master kept going in and out, servants were

1 The description is taken from diagrams in Pitcairn, derived from
a local volume of Antiquarian Proceedings. See, too, The Muses'
Threnodie, by H. Adamson, 1638, with notes by James Cant (Perth,
1774), pp. 163, 164.

THE SLAUGHTER OF THE RUTHVENS 19

whispered to, and Sir Thomas Erskine sent a
townsman to buy him a pair of green silk stockings
in Perth.1 He wanted to dine comfortably.

Leaving the Kind's retinue in the hall, and the

O O '

King in the dining chamber off the hall, we may note
what, up to this point, the nobles and gentlemen of
the suite had to say, at the trial in November, about
the adventures of that August morning. Mar had

O O

not seen the Master at Falkland ; after the kill Mar
did not succeed in rejoining James till they were
within two or three miles of Perth.

Drummond of Inchaffray had nodded to the
Master, at Falkland, before the Master met the King
at the stables. He later saw the Master in confer-
ence for about a quarter of an hour with James, out-
side the stables. The Master then left the King :
Inchaffray invited him to bVeakfast, but he declined,
* as his Majesty had ordered him to wait upon him.'
(According to other evidence he had already break-
fasted at Falkland.) Inchaffray then breakfasted in
Falkland town, and next rode along the highway
towards his own house. On the road he overtook
Lennox, Lindores, Urchill, Hamilton of Grange,
Finlay Taylor, the King, and the Master, riding
Perthwards. He joined them, and went with them
into Gowrie House.

Nobody else, among the witnesses, did anything
but agree with Lennox's account up to this point.
But four menials of James, for example, a cellarer

1 Pitcairn, ii. 199.

c 2

20 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

and a porter, were at Gowrie House, in addition to
the nobles and gentlemen who gave this evidence.

To return to Lennox's tale : dinner was not ready
for his hungry Majesty, as we have said, till an hour
after his arrival ; was not ready, indeed, till about two
o'clock. He had obviously not been expected, or
Gowrie did not wish it to be known that he was
expected, and himself had dined before the King's
arrival, between twelve and one o'clock. A shoulder
of mutton, a fowl, and a solitary grouse were all that
the Earl's caterer could procure, except cold meat :
obviously a poor repast to set before a king. It is
said that the Earl had meant to leave Perth in the
afternoon. When James reached the stage of dessert,
Gowrie, who had waited on him, entered the hall, and
invited the suite to dine. When they had nearly
finished, Gowrie returned to them in the hall, and sent
round a grace-cup, in which all pledged the King.
Lennox then rose, to rejoin the King (who now passed,
with the Master, across and out of the hall), but
Gowrie said 'His Majesty was gone upstairs quietly
some quiet errand.' Gowrie then called for the key of
the garden, on the banks of the Tay, and he, Lindores,
the lame Dr. Herries, and others went into the gar-
den, where, one of them tells us, they ate cherries.
While they were thus engaged, Gowrie's equerry, or
master stabler, a Mr. Thomas Cranstoun, who had
been long in France, and had returned thence with
the Earl in April, appeared, crying, ' The King has
mounted, and is riding through the Inch,' that is, the

THE SLAUGHTER OF THE RUTHVENS 21

Inch of Perth, where the famous clan battle of thirty
men a side had been fought centuries ago. Gowrie
shouted ' Horses ! horses ! ' but Cranstoun said ' Your
horse is at Scone,' some two miles off, on the further
side of the Tay. Why the Earl that day kept his
horse so remote, in times when men of his rank sel-
dom walked, we may conjecture later (cf. p. 86, infra}.

The Earl, however (says Lennox), affected not to
hear Cranstoun, and still shouted ' Horses ! ' He and
Lennox then passed into the house, through to the
front yard, or Close, and so to the outer gate, giving
on the street. Here Lennox asked the porter,
Christie, if the King had gone. The porter said
he was certain that the King had not left the house.
On this point Lindores, who had been with Gowrie
and Lennox in the garden, and accompanied them to
the gate, added (as indeed Lennox also did) that
Gowrie now explained to the porter that James had
departed by the back gate. ' That cannot be, my
Lord,' said the porter, ' for I have the key of the
back gate.' Andrew Eay, a bailie of Perth, who
had been in the house, looking on, told the same tale,
adding that Gowrie gave the porter the lie. The
porter corroborated all this at the trial, and quoted
his own speech about the key, as it was given by
Lindores. He had the keys, and must know whether
the King had ridden away or not.

In this odd uncertainty, Gowrie said to Lennox,
4 1 am sure the King has gone ; but stay, I shall go
upstairs, and get your lordship the very certainty.'

22 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

Gowrie thereon went from the street door, through
the court, and up the chief staircase of the house,
whence he came down again at once, and anew
affirmed to Lennox that ' the King was forth at the
back gate and away.' They all then went out of the
front gate, and stood in the street there, talking, and
wondering where they should seek for his Majesty.

Where was the King ? Here we note a circum-
stance truly surpiising. It never occurred to the
Earl of Gowrie, when dubiously told that the King
had 6 loupen on ' — and ridden off- -to ask, Where is
the King's horse ? If the Eoyal nag was in the Earl's
stable, then James had not departed. Again — a thing
more astonishing still — it has never occurred to any of
the unnumbered writers on the Gowrie conspiracy to
ask, ' How did the Earl, if guilty of falsehood as to
the King's departure, mean to get over the difficulty
about the King's horse ? ' If the horse was in the
stable, then the King had not ridden away, as the
Earl declared. Gowrie does not seem to have kid-
napped the horse. We do not hear, from the King,
or any one, that the horse was missing when the
Eoyal party at last rode home.

The author is bound, in honour, to observe that
this glaring difficulty about the horse did not occur to
him till he had written the first draft of this historical
treatise, after reading so many others on the subject.
And yet the eagle glance of Mr. Sherlock Holmes
would at once have lighted on his Majesty's mount.
However, neither at the time, nor in the last three

THE SLAUGHTER OF THE RUTH YENS 23

centuries (as far as we know), was any one sensible
enough to ask ' How about the King's horse ? '

We return to the question, ' Where was the
King ? '

Some time had elapsed since he passed silently
from the chamber where he had lunched, through the
hall, with the Master, and so upstairs, fi going quietly
a quiet errand,' Gowrie had explained to the men
of the retinue. The gentlemen had then strolled in
the garden, till Cranstoun came out to them with the
news of the King's departure. Young John Earn-
say, one of James's gentlemen, had met the Laird of
Pittencrieff in the hall, and had asked where his
Majesty was. Both had gone upstairs, had examined
the fair gallery filled with pictures collected by the late
Earl, and had remained ' a certain space ' admiring it.
They thence went into the front yard, the Close, where
Cranstoun met them and told them that the King had
gone. Instead of joining the gentlemen whom we
left loitering and wondering outside the front gate,
on the street, Eamsay ran to the stables for his horse,
he said, and, as he waited at the stable door (being
further from the main entrance than Lennox, Mar,
and the rest), he heard James's voice, 'but understood
not what he spake.' l

The others, on the street, just outside the gate,
being nearer the house than Eamsay, suddenly heard
the King's voice, and even his words. Lennox said to
Mar, ' The King calls, be he where he will.' They all

1 The evidence of these witnesses is in Pitcairn, ii. 171-191.

24 THE GOWPJE MYSTERY

glanced up at the house, and saw, says Lennox, ' his
Majesty looking out at the window, hatless, his face
red, and a hand gripping his face and mouth.' The
King called : ' I am murdered. Treason ! My Lord
of Mar, help, help ! ' Mar corroborated : InchafFray
saw the King vanish from the window, ' and in his
judgment, his Majesty was pulled, perforce, in at
the same window.' Bailie Bay of Perth saw the
window pushed up, saw the King's face appear, and
heard his cries. Murray of Arbany, who had come
to Perth from another quarter, heard the King.
Murray seems to have been holding the King's falcon
on his wrist, in hall ; he had later handed the bird to
young Eamsay.

On beholding this vision of the King, hatless,
red -faced, vociferous, and suddenly vanishing, most
of his lords and gentlemen, and Murray of Arbany,
rushed through the gate, through the Close, into the
main door of the house, up the broad staircase,
through the long fair gallery, and there they were
stopped by a locked door. They could not reach the
King ! Finding a ladder, they used it as a battering-
ram, but it broke in their hands. They sent for
hammers, and during some half an hour they
thundered at the door, breaking a hole in a panel,
but unable to gain admission.

Now these facts, as to the locked door, and the
inability of most of the suite to reach the King, are
denied by no author. They make it certain that, if
James had contrived a plot against the two Euthvens,

THE SLAUGHTER OF THE RUTH YENS 25

he had not taken his two nobles, Mar and Lennox,
and these other gentlemen, and Murray of Arbany,
into the scheme. He had not even arranged that
another of his retinue should bring them from their
futile hammer-work, to his assistance, by another
way.

For there was another way. Young Eamsay was
not with Lennox and the rest, when they saw and
heard the flushed and excited King cry out of the
window. Eamsay, he says, was further off than the
rest ; was at the stable door : he heard and recognised
James's voice, but saw nothing of him, and distin-
guished no words. He ran into the front yard,
through the outer gate. Lennox and the rest had
already vanished within the house. Eamsay noticed
the narrow door in the wall of the house, giving on
the quadrangle, and nearer him than the main door
of entrance, to reach which he must cross the quad-
rangle diagonally. He rushed into the narrow door-
way, ran up a dark corkscrew staircase, found a door
at the top, heard a struggling and din of men's feet
within, ' dang open ' the door, caught a glimpse of
a man behind the King's back, and saw James and
the Master ' wrestling together in each other's
arms.'

James had the Master's head under his arm, the
Master, ' almost upon his knees,' had his hand on the
King's face and mouth. ' Strike him low,' cried the
King, ' because he wears a secret mail doublet ' —
such as men were wont to wear on a doubtful though

26 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

apparently peaceful occasion, like a Warden's Day
on the Border. Eamsay threw down the King's
falcon, which he had taken from Murray and bore on
his wrist, drew his dagger or couteau de chasse, and
struck the Master on the face and neck. The King
set his foot on the falcon's leash, and so held it.
Ramsay might have spared and seized the Master,
instead of wounding him ; James later admitted that,
but ' Man,' he said, ' I had neither God nor the Devil
before me, but my own defence.' Remember that
hammers were thundering on a door hard by, and
that neither James nor Ramsay knew who knocked
so loud — enemies or friends.

The King then, says Ramsay, pushed the wounded
Master down the steep narrow staircase up which the
young man had run. The man of whom Ramsay had
caught a glimpse, standing behind the King, had
vanished like a wraith. Ramsay went to a window,
looked out, and, seeing Sir Thomas Erskine, cried,
' Come up to the top of the staircase.'

Where was Erskine, and what was he doing?

He had not followed Lennox and Mar in their rush
back into the house. On hearing James's cries from
the window, he and his brother had tried to seize
Gowrie, who had been with the party of Lennox and
Mar. If James was in peril, within Gowrie's house,
they argued, naturally, that Gowrie was responsible.
JSTot drawing sword or dagger — daggers, indeed, they
had none- -the two Erskine brothers rushed on Gow-
rie, who was crying ' What is the matter ? I know

THE SLAUGHTER OF THE RUTHVENS 27

nothing ! ' They bore him, or nearly bore him, to the
ground, but his retainers separated the stragglers, and
one, a Euthven, knocked Sir Thomas down with his
fist. The knight arose, and ran into the front court,
where Dr. Herries asked him ' what the matter
meant. ' At this moment Erskine heard Ramsay cry
' Come up here,' from the top of the narrow dark
staircase, he says, not from the window ; Eamsay
may have called from both. Erskine, who was
accompanied by the lame Dr. Herries, and by a
menial of his brother's named Wilson, found the
bleeding Master near the foot of the stair, and shouted
6 This is the traitor, strike him.' The stricken lad fell,
saying, ' Alas, I had not the wyte of it,' and the
three entered the chamber where now were only the
King and Eamsay. Words, not very intelligible as
reported by Erskine (we consider them later), passed
between him and the King. Though Erskine does
not say so, they shut James up in the turret opening
into the chamber where they were, and instantly
Cranstoun, the Earl's equerry, entered with a drawn
sword, followed by Gowrie, with ' two swords,' while
some other persons followed Gowrie.

Where had Gowrie been since the two Erskines
tried to seize him in the street, and were separated
from him by a throng of his retainers ? Why was
Gowrie, whose honour was interested in the King's
safety, later in reaching the scene than Erskine, the
limping Dr. Herries, and the serving man, Wilson ?
The reason appears to have been that, after the two

28 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

Erskines were separated from Gowrie, Sir Thomas
ran straight from the street, through the gateway,
into the front court of the house, meeting, in the
court, Dr. Herries, who was slow in his movements.
But Gowrie, on the other hand, was detained by
certain of Tullibardine's servants, young Tullibardine
being present. This, at least, was the story given
under examination by Mr. Thomas Cranstoun, Gow-
rie's master stabler, while other witnesses mention
that Gowrie became involved in a struggle, and went
' back from ' his house, further up or down the
street. Young Tullibardine, present at this fray, was
the heir of Murray of Tullibardine, and ancestor, in
the male line, of the present Duke of Atholl. He
later married a niece of the Earl of Gowrie. His
father being a man of forty in 1600, young
Tullibardine must have been very young indeed.
The Murrays were in Perth on the occasion of the
marriage of one of their clan, an innkeeper.

Some of their party were in the street, and seeing
an altercation in which two of the King's gentlemen
were prevented from seizing Gowrie, they made an
ineffectual effort to capture the Earl. Gowrie ran
from them along; the street, and there ' drew his two

O ~

swords out of one scabbard,' says Cranstoun.1 The
Earl had just arrived in Scotland from Italy, where
he had acquired the then fashionable method of
fencing with twin-swords, worn in a single scabbard.

1 Cranstoun's deposition in Pitcairn, ii. 156, 157. At Falkland
August 6.

THE SLAUGHTER OF THE RUTHVENS 29

Gowrie, then, had retreated from the Hurrays to the
house of one Macbreck, as Cranstoun and Macbreck
himself declared. Cranstoun too drew his sword, and
let his cloak fall, asking Gowrie ' what the fray was.'
The Earl said that ' he would enter his own house, or
die by the way.' Cranstoun said that he would go
foremost, 6 but at whom should he strike, for he knew
not who was the enemy ? ' He had only seen the
Erskines collar Gowrie, then certain Murray s in-
terfere, and he was entirely puzzled. Gowrie did
not reply, and the pair advanced to the door of the
house through a perplexed throng. A servant of
Gowrie's placed a steel cap on his head, and with
some four or five of Gowrie's friends (Hew Moncrieff,
Alexander Euthven, Harrv Euthven, and Patrick

•/

Eviot) the Earl and Cranstoun entered the front
court.

Here Cranstoun saw the body of a man, whether
dead or wounded he knew not, lyin«; at ' the old

«/ <_?

turnpike door,' the entry to the dark narrow
staircase up which Eamsay had run to the King's
rescue. ' Who lies there ? ' asked Cranstoun. Gowrie
only replied, ' Up the stair ! ' Cranstoun led the way,
Gowrie came next ; the other four must have followed,
for several witnesses presently saw them come down
again, wounded and bleeding. Cranstoun found
Erskine, Eamsay, and Herries with drawn swords in
the chamber. The King, then in the turret, he did
not see. He taunted Herries ; Eamsay and Gowrie
crossed swords ; Cranstoun dealt, he says, with

30 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

Herries, Erskine, and perhaps Wilson. But, though
Cranstoun ' nowise knew who followed him,' the four
men already named, two Euthvens, a MoncriefF, and
Eviot, were in the fray, though there was some
uncertainty about Eviot.1

The position of the King, at this moment, was
unenviable. He was shut up in the little round turret
room. On the other -side of the door, in the chamber,
swords were clashing, feet were stamping. James
knew that he had four defenders, one of them a
lame medical man ; who or how many their oppo-
nents might be, he could not know. The air rang
with the thunder of hammers on the door of the
chamber where the fight raged ; were they wielded
by friends or enemies ? From the turret window the
King could hear the town bell ringing, and see the
gathering of the burgesses of Perth, the friends of
their Provost, Gowrie. We know that they could
easily muster eight hundred armed men. Which side
would they take ? The Murrays, as we saw, had
done nothing, except that some of them had crowded
round Gowrie. Meanwhile there was clash of steel,
stamping of feet, noise of hammers, while the King,
in the turret, knew not how matters were going.

Cranstoun only saw his own part of the fight in
the chamber. How Eamsay and Gowrie sped in
their duel he knew not. Eamsay, he says, turned

1 The adversaries of the King say that these men ran up, and were
wounded, later, in another encounter. As to this we have no evidence,
but we have evidence of their issuing, wounded, from the dark stair-
case at the moment when Cranstoun fled thence.

THE SLAUGHTER OF THE RUTHVENS 31

on him, and ran him through the body ; Herries also
struck him. Of Gowrie he saw nothing ; he fled,
when wounded, down the turret stair, his companions
following or preceding him. Gowrie, in fact, had
fallen, leaving Bamsay free to deal with Cranstoun.
Writers of both parties declare that Bamsay had
cried to Gowrie, ' You have slain the Kinsr ! ' that

Gowrie dropped his points, and that Bamsay lunged
and ran him through the body. Erskine says
that he himself was wounded in the right hand
by Cranstoun ; Herries lost two fingers. When
Bamsay ran Gowrie through, the Earl, says Erskine,
fell into the arms of a man whom he himself knew
not ; Gowrie's party retreated, but it seems they
returned to the head of the narrow staircase, and
renewed hostilities by pushing swords and halberts
under the narrow staircase door. This appears from
the evidence of Lennox.

After pounding at the door so long, Lennox's
party at last sent Bobert Brown (a servant of
James's, who had brought the hammers) round
to discover another way of reaching the King.
Brown, too, now went up the narrow staircase, and
in the gallery chamber he found the King, with
Herries, Erskine, Bamsay, Wilson, and the dead
Earl. He reassured James ; the hammerers were
his friends. They handed, says Lennox, one of the
hammers to the King's party, through a shattered
panel, ' and they within broke the doors, and gave
them entry.' At this time, halberts and swords were

32 THE GOWIIIE MYSTERY

being struck, by Gowrie's retainers, under the door,
and through the sides of the door, of the chamber ;
this door apparently being that from the chamber
to the narrow staircase. Murray of Arbany (who
had come into the house at the end of dinner) was
stricken through the leg by one of these weapons.
Deacon Ehynd of Perth saw Hew Moncrieff striking
with ' a Jeddart staff,' a kind of lialbert. A voice,
that of Alexander Euthven (a cousin of the fallen
Earl), cried ' For God's sake, my lord, tell me how
the Earl of Gowrie does.' ' He is well. Go your
way ; you are a fool ; you will get no thanks for this
labour,' answerad Lennox, and all was silence.
Alexander Euthven and the rest retreated ; Euthven
rushed to the town, rousing the people, and rifling
shops in search of gunpowder. The King and the
nobles knelt in prayer on the bloody floor of the
chamber where the dead Gowrie lay. For some
time the confused mob yelled outside, shaking their
fists at the King's party in the window : men and
women crying ' Come down, Green-coats, ye have
committed murder ! Bloody butchers ! ' Others
cried ' The Kin^ is shot ! ' The exits of the house

were guarded by retainers of Gowrie — Eentoul,
Bissett, and others.

Mar and Lennox, from the window, explained to
the mob that the King was well. James showed
himself, the magistrates and nobles pacified the
people, who, some armed, some unarmed, were all
perplexed, whether they were anxious about the

^i
o

THE SLAUGHTEE OF THE RUTHVENS 33

King or about their Provost, the Earl. From the
evidence of scores of burghers, it appears that the
tumult did not last long. One man was reaping
in the Morton haugh. Hearing the town bell he
hastened in, ' when all the tumult was ceased,' and
the magistrates, Eay and others, were sending the
people to their houses, as also did young Tullibardine.
A baker, hearing the bell, went to the town cross,
and so to Gowrie's house, where he met the stream
of people coming away. Another baker was at
work, and stayed with his loaves, otherwise he ' would
have lost his whole baking.' The King represents that
it was between seven and eight in the evening before
matters were quiet enough for him to ride home to
Falkland, owing to the tumult. The citizens doubt-
less minimised, and James probably exaggerated, the
proportions and duration of the disturbance.

This version of that strange affair, the slaughter
of the Euthvens, is taken entirely from the lips of
sworn witnesses. We still know no more than we
did as to what passed between the moment when
James and the Master, alone, left the dining chamber,
and the moment when the Kino* cried ' Treason ! ' out

of the turret window.

The problem is, had James lured the Master to
Falkland for the purpose of accompanying him back
to Perth, as if by the Master's invitation, and of there
craftily begetting a brawl, in which Gowrie and the
Master should perish at the hands of Earn say? Or
had the Master, with or without his brother's know-

34 THE GOWEIE MYSTERY

ledge, lured James to Perth for some evil end ? The
question divided Scotland ; France and England were
sceptical as to the King's innocence. Our best
historians, like Mr. Hill Burton and Mr. Tytler, side
with the King ; others are dubious, or believe that
James was the conspirator, and that the Euthvens
were innocent victims.

III
THE KING'S OWN NARRATIVE

So far we have not gained any light on the occur-
rences of the mysterious interval between the
moment when the King and Alexander Euthven
passed alone through the hall, after dinner, up the
great staircase, and the moment when the King cried
' Treason ! ' out of the turret window. In the nature
of the case, the Master being for ever silent, only
James could give evidence on the events of this
interval, James and one other man, of whose presence
in the turret we have hitherto said little, as only
one of the witnesses could swear to having seen a
man there, none to having seen him escaping thence,
or in the tumult. Now the word of James was not
to be relied on, any more than that of the unequalled
Elizabeth. If we take the King's word in this case,
it is from no prejudice in his favour, but merely
because his narrative seems best to fit the facts as
given on oath by men like Lennox, Mar, and other
witnesses of aU ranks. It also fits, with discrepancies
to be noted, the testimony of the other man, the man
who professed to have been with the Master and the

King in the turret.

D 2

36 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

The evidence of that other man was also subject,
for reasons which will appear presently, to the
gravest suspicion. James, if himself guilty of the
plot, had to invent a story to excuse himself; the
other man had to adopt the version of the King, to
save his own life from the gibbet. On the other
hand, James, if innocent, could not easily have a
credible story to tell. If the Master was sane, it was
hardly credible that, as James averred, he should
menace the King with murder, in his brother's house,
with no traceable preparations either for night or for
armed resistance. In James's narrative the Master
is made at least to menace the King with death.
However true the King's story might be, his adver-
saries, the party of the Kirk and the preachers, would
never accept it. In Lennox's phrase they ' liked it
not, because it was not likely.' Emphatically it was
not likely, but the contradictory story put forward
by the Euthven apologist, as we shall see, was not
only improbable, but certainly false.

There was living at that time a certain Mr. David
Calderwood, a young Presbyterian minister, aged
twenty-five. He was an avid collector of rumour, of
talk, and of actual documents, and his ' History of
the Kirk of Scotland,' composed at a much later date,
is wonderfully copious and accurate. As it was im-
possible for King James to do anything at which
Calderwood did not carp, assigning the worst imagin-
able motives in every case, we shall find in Calderwood
the sum of contemporary hostile criticism of his

THE KING'S OWN NARRATIVE 3

Majesty's narrative. But the criticism is negative.
Calderwood's critics only pick holes in the King's
narrative, but do not advance or report any other
explanation of the events, any complete theory of the
King's plot from the Euthven side. Any such story,
any such hypothesis, must be to the full as impro-
bable as the King's narrative.

There is nothing probable in the whole affair ;
every system, every hypothesis is difficile a croire.
Yet the events did occur, and we cannot reject
James's account merely because it is ' unlikely.' The
improbabilities, however, were enormously increased
by the King's theory that the Euthvens meant to
murder him. This project (not borne out by the
King's own version of Euthven's conduct) would have
been insane : the Euthvens, by murdering James,
would have roused the whole nation and the Kirk
itself against them. But if their object was to kidnap
James, to secure his person, to separate him from
his Ministers (who were either secretly Catholics, or
Iiidifferents), and to bring in a new administration
favourable to Kirk, or Church, then the Euthvens were
doing what had several times been done, and many
times attempted. James had been captured before,
even in his own palace, while scores of other plots,
to take him, for instance, when hunting in Falkland
woods, remote from his retinue, had been recentlv

planned, and had failed. To kidnap the King was
the commonest move in politics ; but as James thought,
or said, that the idea at Gowrie House was to murder

38 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

him, his tale, even if true, could not be easily
credible.

The first narrative was drawn up at Falkland
in the night of August 5. Early on August 6 the
letter reached the Chancellor in Edinburgh, and the
contents of the letter were repeated orally by the
Secretary of State (Elphinstone, later Lord Balmerino)
to Nicholson, the English resident at the Court of
Holyrood. Nicholson on the same day reported what
he remembered of what the Secretary remembered
of the Falkland letter, to Cecil. Yet though at third
hand Nicholson's written account of the Falkland
letter of August 5 l contains the same version as James
later published, with variations so few and so unes-
sential that it is needless to dwell upon them, they
may safely be attributed to the modifications which a
story must suffer in passing through the memories of
two persons. Whatever the amount of truth in his
narrative, the King had it ready at once in the form
to which he adhered, and on which he voluntarily
underwent severe cross-examination, on oath, by
Mr. Eobert Bruce, one of the Edinburgh ministers ; a
point to which we return.

James declares in a later narrative printed and
published about the end of August 1600, that the
Master, when he first met him at Falkland, made a
very low bow, which was not his habit. The Master

1 Quoted by Pitcairn, ii. 209. The Falkland letter, as we show
later, was probably written by David Moysie, but must have been,
more or less, ' official.' Cf. p. 100, infra.

THE KING'S OWN NARRATIVE 39

then said (their conference, we saw, occupied a
quarter of an hour) that, while walking alone on the
previous evening, he had met a cloaked man carrying
a great pot, full of gold in large coined pieces.
Euthven took the fellow secretly to Gowrie House,
' locked him in a privy derned house, and, after locking
many doors on him, left him there and his pot with
him.'

It might be argued that, as the man was said to
be locked in a house, and as James was not taken
out of Gowrie House to see him, James must have
known that, when he went upstairs with the Master,
he was not going to see the prisoner. The error
here is that, in the language of the period, a house
often means a room, or chamber. It is so used by
James elsewhere in this very narrative, and endless
examples occur in the letters and books of the
period.

Euthven went on to explain, what greatly needed
explanation, that he had left Perth so early in the
morning that James might have the first knowledge
of this secret treasure, concealed hitherto even from
Gowrie. James objected that he had no right to the
gold, which was not treasure trove. Euthven replied
that, if the King would not take it, others would.
James now began to suspect, very naturally, that the
gold was foreign coin. Indeed, what else could it well
be ? Coin from France, Italy, or Spain, brought in often
by political intriguers, was the least improbable sort of
minted gold to be found in poor old Scotland. In the

40 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

troubles of 1592-1596 the supplies of the Catholic
rebels were in Spanish money, whereof some was likely
enough to be buried by the owners. James, then,
fancied that Jesuits or others had brought in gold
for seditious purposes, ' as they have ofttimes done
before.' Sceptics of the period asked how one pot of
gold could cause a sedition. The question is puerile.
There would be more gold where the potful came
from, if Catholic intrigues were in the air. James
then asked the Master ' what kind of coin it was.'
6 They seemed to be foreign and uncouth ' (unusual)
' strokes of coin,' said Euthven, and the man, he added,
was a stranger to him.

James therefore suspected that the man might be
a disguised Scottish priest : the few of them then in
Scotland always wore disguises, as they tell us in
their reports to their superiors.1 The King's infer-
ences as to popish plotters were thus inevitable,
though he may have emphasised them in his narrative
to conciliate the preachers. His horror of ' practising
Papists,' at this date, was unfeigned. He said to the
Master that he could send a servant with a warrant
to Growrie and the magistrates of Perth to take and
examine the prisoner and his hoard. Contemporaries
asked why he did not ' commit the credit of this
matter to another.' James had anticipated the
objection. He did propose this course, but Euthven
replied that, if others once touched the money, the

1 Many of these may be read in Narratives of Scottish CatJiolics,
by Father Forbes-Leith, S.J.

THE KING'S OWN NARK ATI VE 41

King ' would get a very bad account made to him of
that treasure.' He implored his Majesty to act as
he advised, and not to forget him afterwards. This
suggestion may seem mean in Euthven, but the age
was not disinterested, nor was Euthven trying to
persuade a high-souled man. The King was puzzled
and bored, ' the morning was fair, the game already
found,' the monarch was a keen sportsman, so he
said that he would think the thing over and answer
at the end of the hunt.

Granting James's notorious love of disentangling
a mystery, granting his love of money, and of hunt-
ing, I agree with Mr. Tytler in seeing nothing im-
probable in this narration. If the Master wanted to
lure the King to Perth, I cannot conceive a better
device than the tale which, according to the King, he
told. The one improbable point, considering the
morals of the country, was that Euthven should
come to James, in place of sharing the gold with his
brother. But Euthven, we shall see, had possibly
good reasons, known to James, for conciliating the
Eoyal favour, and for keeping his brother ignorant.
Moreover, to seize the money would not have been a
safe thing for Euthven to do ; the story would have
leaked out, questions would have been asked. James
had hit on the only plausible theory to account
for a low fellow with a pot of gold; he must be
' a practising Papist.' James could neither suppose,
nor expect others to believe that he supposed, one
pot of foreign gold enough ' to bribe the country into

42 THE GOWBIE MYSTERY

rebellion.' But the pot, and the prisoner, supplied
a clue worth following. Probabilities strike different
critics in different ways. Mr. Tytler thinks James's
tale true, and that he acted* in character. That is my
opinion ; his own the reader must form for himself.

Euthven still protested. This hunt of gold was
well worth a buck! The prisoner, he said, might
attract attention by his cries, a very weak argument,
but Euthven was quite as likely to invent it on the
spur of the moment, as James was to attribute it to
him falsely, on cool reflection. Finally, if James
came at once, Gowrie would then be at the preaching
(Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sundays were preaching
days), and the Eoyal proceedings with the captive
would be undisturbed.

Now, on the hypothesis of intended kidnapping,
this was a well-planned affair. If James accepted
Euthven' s invitation, he, with three or four servants,
would reach Gowrie House while the town of Perth
was quiet. Nothing would be easier than to seclude
him, seize his person, and transport him to the sea-
side, either by Tay, or down the north bank of that
river, or in disguise across Fife, to the Firth of Forth,
in the retinue of Gowrie, before alarm was created at
Falkland. Gowrie had given out (so his friends de-
clared) that he was to go that night to Dirleton, his
castle near North Berwick,1 a strong hold, manned,
and provisioned. Could he have carried the King in

1 Carey to Cecil. Berwick, Border Calendar, vol. ii. p. 677,
August 11, 1600.

THE KING'S OWN NARRATIVE 43

disguise across Fife to Erie, Dirleton was within a
twelve miles sail, on summer seas. Had James's
curiosity and avarice led him to ride away at once with
Euthven, and three or four servants, the plot might
have succeeded. We must criticise the plot on these
lines. Thus, if at all, had the Earl and his brother
planned it. But Fate interfered, the unexpected
occurred — but the plot could not be dropped. The story
of the pot of gold could not be explained away. The
King, with royal rudeness, did not even reply to the
new argument of the Master. ' Without any further
answering him,' his Majesty mounted, Euthven stay-
ing still in the place where the King left him. At
this moment Inchaffray, as we saw, met Euthven,
and invited him to breakfast, but he said that he was
ordered to wait on the King.

At this point, James's narrative contains a cir-
cumstance which, confessedly, was not within his own
experience. He did not know, he says, that the
Master had any companion. But, from the evidence of
another, he learned that the Master had a companion,
indeed two companions. One was Andrew Euthven,
about whose presence nobody doubts. The other,
one Andrew Henderson, was not seen by James at
this time. However, the King says, on Henderson's
own evidence, that the Master now sent him (about
seven o'clock) to warn Gowrie that the King was to
come. Eeally it seems that Henderson was despatched
rather later, during the first check in the run.

It was all-important to the King's case to prove

44 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

that Henderson had been at Falkland, and had re-
turned at once with a message to Gowrie, for this
would demonstrate that, in appearing to be unpre-
pared for the King's arrival (as he did), Gowrie was
making a false pretence. It was also important to
prove that the ride of Euthven and Henderson to
Falkland and back had been concealed, by them,
from the people at Gowrie House. Now this was
proved, Craigengelt. Gowrie's steward, who was tor-
tured, tried, convicted, and hanged, deponed that,
going up the staircase, just after the King's arrival,
he met the Master, booted, and asked ' where he had
been.' ' An errand not far off,' said the Master, conceal-
ing his long ride to Falkland.1 Again, John Moncrieff,
a gentleman who was with Gowrie, asked Henderson
(who had returned to Perth much earlier than the
King's arrival) where he had been, and he said ' that
he had been two or three miles above the town.' 2
Henderson himself later declared that Gowrie had
told him to keep his ride to Falkland secret.3 The
whole purpose of all this secrecy was to hide the
fact that the Euthvens had brought the King to
Perth, and that Gowrie had early notice, by about
10 A.M., of James's approach, from Henderson.
Therefore to make out that Henderson had been in
Falkland, and had given Gowrie early notice of
James's approach, though Gowrie for all that made

1 Deposition of Craigengelt, a steward of Gowrie's, Falkland,
August 16, 1600. Pitcairn, ii. 157.

' Pitcairn, ii. p. 185. 3 Pitcairn, ii. p. 179.

THE KING'S OWN NARRATIVE 45

no preparations to welcome James, was almost
necessary for the Government. They specially ques-
tioned all witnesses on this point. Yet not one of their
witnesses would swear to having seen Henderson at
Falkland. This disposes of the theory of wholesale
perjury.

The modern apologist for the Euthvens, Mr. Louis
Barbe, writes : 'We believe that Henderson perjured
himself in swearing that he accompanied Alexander '
(the Master) ' and Andrew Euthven when . . . they
rode to Falkland. We believe that Henderson per-
jured himself when he asserted, on oath, that the
Master sent him back to Perth with the intelligence
of the Kind's coming.' l

o o

On the other hand, George Hay, lay Prior of the
famous Chartreux founded by James I in Perth,
deponed that Henderson arrived long before Gowrie's
dinner, and Peter Hay corroborated. But Hay averred
that Gowrie asked Henderson ' who was at Falkland
with the King ? ' It would not follow that Henderson
had been at Falkland himself. John Moncrieff
deponed that Gowrie said nothing of Henderson's
message, but sat at dinner, feigning to have no
knowledge of the King's approach, till the Master
arrived, a few minutes before the King. Mr. Ehynd,
Gowrie's tutor, deponed that Andrew Euthven (the
Master's other companion in the early ride to Falk-
land) told him that the Master had sent on Henderson
with news of the King's coming. If Henderson had

1 Barbe, p. 91.

46 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

been at Falkland, lie had some four hours' start of the
King and his party, and must have arrived at Perth,
and spoken to Gowrie, long before dinner, he him-
self says at 10 A.M. Dinner was at noon, or, on this
day, half an hour later. Yet Gowrie made no pre-
parations for welcoming the King.

It is obvious that, though the Hays and Moncriefl
both saw Henderson return, booted, from a ride
somewhere or other, at an early hour, none of them
could prove that he had ridden to Falkland and back.
There was, in fact, no evidence that Henderson had
been at Falkland except his own, and that of the poor
tortured tutor, Ehynd, to the effect that Andrew
Euthven had confessed as much to him. But pre-
sently we shall find that, while modern apologists for
Gowrie deny that Henderson had been at Falkland,
the contemporary Euthven apologist insists that he
had been there.

To return to James's own narrative, he asserts
Henderson's presence at Falkland, but not from
his own knowledge. He did not see Henderson at
Falkland. Euthven, says James, sent Henderson to
Gowrie just after the King mounted and followed the
hounds. Here it must be noted that Henderson him-
self says that Euthven did not actually despatch
him till after he had some more words with the
King. This is an instance of James's insouciance
as to harmonising his narrative with Henderson's,
or causing Henderson to conform to his. ' Cooked '
evidence, collusive evidence, would have avoided

THE KING'S OWN NAERATIVE 47

these discrepancies. James says that, musing over
the story of the pot of gold, he sent one Naismith,
a surgeon (he had been with James at least since
1592), to bring Euthven to him, during a check,
and told Euthven that he would, after the hunt,
come to Perth. James thought that this was after the
despatch of Henderson, but probably it was before,
to judge by Henderson's account.

During this pause, the hounds having hit on the
scent again, the King was left behind, but spurred on.
At every check, the Master kept urging him to make
haste, so James did not tarry to break up the deer,
as usual. The kill was but two bowshots from the
stables, and the King did not wait for his sword, or
his second horse, which had to gallop a mile before
it reached him. Mar, Lennox, and others did wait
for their second mounts, some rode back to Falk-
land for fresh horses, some dragged slowly along
on tired steeds, and did not rejoin James till later.

Euthven had tried, James says, to induce him to
refuse the compan}' of the courtiers. Three or four
servants, he said, would be enough. The others ' might
mar the whole purpose.' James was 'half angry/
he began to entertain odd surmises about Euthven.
One was ' it might be that the Earl his brother had
handled him so hardly, that the young gentleman, being
of a high spirit, had taken such displeasure, as he was
become somewhat beside himself.' But why should
Gowrie handle his brother hardly ?

The answer is suggested by an unpublished con-

48 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

temporary manuscript, 'The True Discovery of the
late Treason,' l &c. ' Some offence had passed betwixt
the said Mr. Alexander Ruthven ' (the Master) ' and
his brother, for that the said Alexander, both of
himself and by his Majesty's mediation, had craved
of the Earl his brother the demission and release of
the Abbey of Scone, which his Majesty had bestowed
upon the said Earl during his life. . . . His suit had
little success.'

If this be fact (and there is no obvious reason for
its invention), James might have reason to suspect
that Gowrie had ' handled his brother hardly : '
Scone being a valuable estate, well worth keeping.
To secure the King's favour as to Scone, Ruthven
had a motive, as James would understand, for making
him, and not Gowrie, acquainted with the secret of the
treasure. Thus the unpublished manuscript casually
explains the reason of the King's suspicion that the
Earl might have ' handled the Master hardly.'

On some such surmise, James asked Lennox (who
corroborates) whether he thought the Master quite
* settled in his wits.' Lennox knew nothing but good

o o

of him (as he said in his evidence), but Ruthven,
observing their private talk, implored James to keep
the secret, and come alone with him — at first — to see
the captive and the treasure. James felt more and
more uneasy, but he had started, and rode on, while

1 State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. Ixvi. No. 50.

2 Mr. S. E. Gardiner alone remarks on this point, in a note to the
first edition of his great History. See note to p. 54, infra.

THE KING'S OWN NARRATIVE 49

the Master now despatched Andrew Euthven to warn
Gowrie. Within a mile of Perth the Master spurred
on his weary horse, and gave the news to Gowrie,
who, despite the messages of Henderson and Andrew
Euthven, was at dinner, unprepared for the Eoyal
arrival. However, Gowrie met James with sixty men
(four, says the Euthven apologist).

James's train then consisted of fifteen persons.
Others must have dropped in later : they had no
fresh mounts, but rested their horses, the King says,
and let them graze by the way. They followed be-
cause, learning that James was going to Perth, they
guessed that he intended to apprehend the Master of
Oliphant, who had been misconducting himself in
Angus. Thus the King accounts for the number of
his train.

An hour passed before dinner : James pressed for
a view of the treasure, but the Master asked the King-
not to converse with him then, as the whole affair
was to be kept secret from Gowrie. If the two
brothers had been at odds about the lands of Scone,
the Master's attitude towards his brother might
seem inteUigible, a point never allowed for by critics
unacquainted with the manuscript which we have
cited. At last the King sat down to dinner, Gowrie
in attendance, whispering to his servants, and often
going in and out of the chamber. The Master, too,
was seen on the stairs by Craigengelt.

If Gowrie's behaviour is correctly described, it
might be attributed to anxiety about a Eoyal meal

50 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

so hastily prepared. But if Gowrie had plenty of
warning, from Henderson (as I do not doubt), that
theory is not sufficient. If engaged in a conspiracy,
Gowrie would have reason for anxiety. The cir-
cumstances, owing to the number of the royal
retinue, were unfavourable, yet, as the story of the
pot of gold had been told by Euthven, the plot could
not be abandoned. James even ' chaffed ' Gow-
rie about being so pensive and distrait, and about
his neglect of some little points of Scottish etiquette.
Finally he sent Gowrie into the hall, with the grace-
cup for the gentlemen, and then called the Master.
He sent Gowrie, apparently, that he might slip off
with the Master, as that o-entleman wished. ' His

7 O

Majesty desired Mr. Alexander to bring Sir Thomas
Erskine with him, who ' (Euthven) ' desiring the King
to go forward with him, and promising that he should
make any one or two follow him that he pleased to
call for, desiring his Majesty to command publicly
that none should follow him.' This seems to mean,
James and the Master were to cross the hall and go
upstairs ; James, or the Master for him, bidding no
one follow (the Master, according to Balgonie, did say
that the King would be alone), while, presently, the
Master should return and privately beckon on one or
two to join the King. The Master's excuse for all
this was the keeping from Gowrie and others, for the
moment, of the secret of the prisoner and the pot of

gold.

Now, if we turn back to Sir Thomas Erskine's

THE KING'S OWN NARRATIVE 51

evidence, we find that, when he joined James in the
chamber, after the slaying of the Master, he said ' I
thought your Majesty would have concredited more
to me, than to have commanded me to await your
Majesty at the door, if you thought it not meet to
have taken me with you.' The King replied, ' Alas,
the traitor deceived me in that, as in all else, for I
commanded him expressly to bring you to me, and
he returned back, as I thought, to fetch you, but he
did nothing but steik [shut] the door.'

What can these words mean ? They appear to
me to imply that James sent the Master back,
according to their arrangement, to bring; Erskine,

O ~ O '

that the Master gave Erskine some invented message
about waiting at some door, that he then shut a door
between the King and his friends, but told the King
that Erskine was to follow them. Erskine was,
beyond doubt, in the street with the rest of the
retinue, before the brawl in the turret reached its
crisis, when Gowrie had twice insisted that James
had ridden away.

In any case, to go on with James's tale, he went
with Euthven up a staircase (the great staircase),
' and through three or four rooms ' — c three or four

t —

sundry houses ' — ' the Master ever locking behind him
every door as he passed, and so into a little study ' —
the turret. This is perplexing. We nowhere hear
in the evidence of more than two doors, in the suite,
which were locked. The staircase perhaps gave on
the long gallery, with a door between them. The

E 2

52 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

gallery gave on a chamber, which had a door (the
door battered by Lennox and Mar), and the chamber
i^ave on a turret, which had a door between it and

the chamber.

We hear, in the evidence, of no other doors, or
of no other locked doors. However, in the Latin in-
dictment of the Euthvens, ' many doors ' are insisted
on. As all the evidence tells of opposition from only
one door- -that between the gallery and the chamber
of death — James's reason for talking of ' three or
four doors ' must be left to conjecture. ' The True
Discourse ' (MS.) gives but the gallery, chamber, and
turret, but appears to allow for a door between
stair and gallery, which the Master ' closed,' while he
' made fast ' the next door, that between gallery and
chamber. One Thomas Hamilton,1 who writes a long
letter (MS.) to a lady unknown, also speaks of several
doors, on the evidence of the King, and some of the
Lords. This manuscript has been neglected by his-
torians.2

Leaving this point, we ask why a man already
suspicious, like James, let the Master lock any door
behind him. We might reply that James had dined,
and that ' wine and beer produce a careless state of
mind,' as a writer on cricket long ago observed.
We may also suppose that, till facts proved the
locking of one door at least (for about that there is
no doubt), James did not know that any door was

1 Apparently not Sir Thomas Hamilton, the King's Advocate.

2 State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. Ixvi. No. 51.

THE KING'S OWN NARRATIVE 53

locked. On August 11 the Eev. Mr. Galloway, in a
sermon preached before the King and the populace
at the Cross of Edinburgh, says that the Master
led the monarch upstairs, ' and through a trans '
(a passage), ' the door whereof, so soon as they had
entered, chekit to with ane lok, then through a gallery,
whose door also chekit to, through a chamber, and
the door thereof chekit to, also,' and thence into the
turret of which he ' also locked the door.' 1

Were the locks that ' chekit to ' spring locks, and
was James unaware that he was locked in ? But Eam-
say, before the affray, had wandered into ' a gallery,
very fair,' and unless there were two galleries, he
could not do this, if the gallery door was locked.
Lennox and Mar and the rest speak of opposition
from only one door.

While we cannot explain these things, that door,
at least, between the gallery and the gallery chamber,
excluded James from most of his friends. Can
the reader believe that he purposely had that door
locked, we know not how, or by whom, on the sys-
tem of compelling Gowrie to c come and be killed '
by way of the narrow staircase ? Could we see
Gowrie House, and its ' secret ways,' as it then was,
we might understand this problem of the locked
doors. Contemporary criticism, as minutely recorded
by Calderwood, found no fault with the number of
locked doors, but only asked 'how could the King's
fear but increase, perceiving Mr. Alexander ' (the

1 Pitcairn, vol. ii. p. 249.

54 THE now i: IK MYSTEKY

Master) ' ever to lock the doors behind them? If
the doors closed with spring locks (of which the
principle had long been understood and used), the
King may not have been aware of the locking. The
problem cannot be solved; we only disbelieve that
the King himself had the door locked, to keep his
friends out, and let Gowrie in.

NOTE. — The Abbey of Scone. On page 48 we have quoted
the statement that Jarnes had bestowed on Gowrie the Abbey of
Scone ' during his life.' This was done in 1580 (Begiatrum Magni
Siffilli, vol. iii. No. 3011). On May 25, 1584, William Fullarton
got this gift, the first Earl of Gowrie and his children being then
forfeited. But on July 23, 1580, the Gowrie of the day was restored
to all his lands, and the Earldom of Gowrie included the old church
lands of Scone (Reg. Mag. Sig. iv. No. 695, No. 1044). How, then,
did John, third Earl of Gowrie, hold only ' for his life ' the Com-
mendatorship of the Abbey of Scone, as is stated in S. P. Scot. (Eli/.)
vol. Ixvi. No. 50?

THE KING'S NARRATIVE

THE MAN IN THE TURRET

WE left James entering the little ' round,' or ' study,'
the turret chamber. Here, at last, he expected to
find the captive and the pot of gold. And here the
central mystery of his adventure began. His Majesty
saw standing, ' with a very abased countenance, not
a bondman but a freeman, with a dagger at his
girdle.' Euthven locked the door, put on his hat,
drew the man's dagger, and held the point to the
King's breast, ' avowing now that the King behoved to
be at his wilL and used as he list : swearing manv

o «/

bloody oaths that if the King cried one word, or
opened a window to look out, that dagger should go
to his heart.'

If this tale is true, murder was not intended,
unless James resisted : the King was only being
threatened into compliance with the Master's ' will.'
Euthven added that the King's conscience must now
be burthened ' for murdering his father,' that is, for
the execution of William, Earl of Gowrie, in 1584.

56 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

His conviction was believed to have been procured
in a dastardly manner, later to be explained.

James was unarmed, and obviously had no secret

coat of mail, in which he could not have hunted all
day, perhaps. Euthven had his sword ; as for the
other man he stood ' trembling and quaking.' James
now made to the Master the odd harangue reported
even in Nicholson's version of the Falkland letter of the
same day. As for Gowrie's execution, the King said,
he had then been a minor (he was eighteen in 1584),
and Gowrie was condemned ' by the ordinary course of
law ' — which his friends denied. James had restored,
he said, all the lands and dignities of the House, two
of Euthven's sisters were maids of honour. Euthven
had been educated by the revered Mr. Eollock, he
ouo'ht to have learned better behaviour. If the King

o o

died he would be avenged : Gowrie could not hope
for the throne. The King solemnly promised forgive-
ness and silence, if Euthven let him go.

Euthven now uncovered his head, and protested
that the King's life should be safe, if he made no
noise or cry : in that case Euthven would now bring
Gowrie to him. ' Why ? ' asked James ; ' you could
gain little by keeping such a prisoner ? ' Euthven
said that he could not explain ; Gowrie would tell
him the rest. Turning to the other man, he said ' I
make you the King's keeper till I come again, and
see that you keep him upon your peril.' He then
went out, and locked the door. The person who later
averred that he had been the man in the turret,

THE KING'S NARRATIVE 57

believed that Euthven never went far from the door.
James believed, indeed averred, that he ran down-
stairs, and consulted Gowrie.

If there was an armed man in the turret, he
was either placed there by the King, to protect him
while he summoned his minions by feigned cries of

« o

treason, or he was placed there by Gowrie to help
the Master to seize the Kin^. In the latter case, the

t^ *

Master's position was now desperate ; in lieu of an
ally he had procured a witness against himself. Great
need had he to consult Gowrie, but though Gow-
rie certainly entered the house, went upstairs, and
returned to Lennox with the assurance that James
had ridden away, it is improbable that he and his
brother met at this moment. James, however, avers
that they met, Euthven running rapidly downstairs,
but this was mere inference on the King's part.

James occupied the time of Euthven's absence
in asking the man of the turret what he knew of
the conspiracy. The man replied that he knew
nothing, he had but recently been locked into the
little chamber. Indeed, while Euthven was threaten-
ing, the man (says James) was trembling, and
adjuring the Master not to harm the King. James,
having sworn to Euthven that he would not open
the window himself, now, characteristically, asked
the man to open the window 'on his right hand.'
If the King had his back to the turret door, the
window on his right opened on the courtyard, the
window on his left opened on the street. The

58 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

man readily opened the window, says the King,
and the person claiming to be the man deponed later
that he first opened what the King declared to be the
wrong window, but, before he could open the other,
in came the Master, who, ' casting his hands abroad
in desperate manner, said "he could not mend it,
his Majesty behoved to die." Instead of stabbing
James, however, he tried to bind the Eoyal hands
with a garter, ' swearing he behoved to be bound.'
(A garter was later picked up on the floor by one of
the witnesses, Graham of Balgonie, and secured by
Sir Thomas Erskine.1)

A struggle then began, James keeping the
Master's right hand off his sword-hilt ; the Master
trying to silence James with his left hand. James

*• {—}

dragged the Master to the window, which the other
man had opened. (In the Latin indictment of the
dead Euthvens, James opens the window himself.)
The turret man said, in one of two depositions, that
he stretched across the wrestlers, and opened the
window. The retinue and Gowrie were passing, as
we know, or loitering below ; Gowrie affected not to
hear the cries of treason ; Lennox, Mar, and the rest
rushed up the great staircase. Meanwhile, struggling
with the Master, James had brought him out of the
turret into the chamber, so he says, though, more
probably, the Master brought him. They were now

1 Mr. Scott suggested that a piece of string was found by Balgonie.
The words of Balgonie are ' ane gartane '- —a garter. He never
mentions string.

TILE KING'S NARRATIVE

near the door of the chamber that gave on the narrow
staircase, and James was ' throwing tlie Master's sword
out of his hand, thinking to have stricken him there-
with,' when Eamsay entered, and wounded the Master,
who was driven down the stairs, and there killed
by Erskine and Herries. Gowrie then invaded the
room with seven others : James was looking for the

The Black /'
Turnpike ,'

Court Yard

Gallery
Chamber

Gate

x
x

Earl of Mar and King's Suite,
the Earl of Gowrie etc.

Window whence
the King cried

* x

Master's sword,1 which had fallen, but he was instantly
shut into the turret by his friends, and saw none
of the fight in which Gowrie fell. After that Lennox
and the party with hammers were admitted, and — the
tumult appeased — James rode back, through a dark
rainy night, to Falkland.

1 According to a story given by Calderwood, Ruthven's sword was
later found rusted in its sheath, but no authority is given for the tale.

60 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

HENDEBSON'S NAEEATIVE

THE man in the turret had vanished like a ghost.
Henderson, on the day after the tragedy, was also
not to be found. Like certain Euthvens, Hew
Moncrieff, Eviot, and others, who had fought in the
death-chamber, or been distinguished in the later riot,
Henderson had fled. He was, though a retainer of
Gowrie, a member of the Town Council of Perth,
and ' chamberlain,' or c factor,' of the lands of Scone,
then held by Gowrie from the King. To find any
one who had seen him during the tumult was difficult
or impossible. William Eobertson, a notary of Perth,
examined in November before the Parliamentary
Committee, said then that he only saw Gowrie, with
his two drawn swords, and seven or eight companions,
in the forecourt of the house, and so, ' being afraid,
he passed out of the place.' The same man, earlier,
on September 23, when examined with other citizens
of Perth, had said that he followed young Tullibar-
dine and some of his men, who were entering the
court ' to relieve the King.' l He saw the Master
lying dead at the foot of the stair, and saw Hender-

1 Pitcairn, ii. 197.

HENDERSON'S NARRATIVE 61

son ' come out of the said turnpike, over the Master's
belly.' He spoke to Henderson, who did not answer.
He remembered that Murray of Arbany was pre-
sent. Arbany, before the Parliamentary Committee
in November, said nothing on this subject, nor did
Robertson. His evidence would have been impor-
tant, had he adhered to what he said on Septem-
ber 23. But, oddly enough, if he perjured himself
on the earlier occasion (September 23), he withdrew
his perjury, when it would have been useful to the
King's case, in the evidence given before the Lords
of the Articles, in November. Mr. Barbe, perhaps
misled by the sequence of versions in Pitcairn, writes :
' Apparently it was only when his memory had been
stimulated by the treatment of those whose evidence
was found to be favourable to the King that the wily
notary recalled the details by which he intended to
corroborate Henderson's statement. . . .' l

The reverse is the case : the wily notary did not
offer, at the trial in November, the evidence which
he had given, in September, at the examination of
the citizens of Perth. It may perhaps be inferred
that perjury was not encouraged, but depressed.2

1 The Tragedy of Gowrie House, by Louis Barbe, 1887, p. 91.

2 Mr. Barbe, as we saw, thinks that Robertson perjured himself,
when he swore to having seen Henderson steal out of the dark stair-
case and step over Ruthven's body. On the other hand, Mr. Bisset
thought that Robertson spoke truth on this occasion, but concealed the
truth in his examination later, because his evidence implied that
Henderson left the dark staircase, not when Ramsay attacked Ruthven,
but later, when Ruthven had already been slain. Mr. Bisset' s theory
was that Henderson had never been in the turret during the crisis, but
had entered the dark staircase from a door of the dining-hall on the

62 THE GOW1UE MYSTERY

Despite the premiums on perjury which Euthven
apologists insist on, not one witness would swear to
having seen Henderson during or after the tumult.

O D

Yet he instantly fled, with others who had been
active in the brawl, and remained in concealment.
Calderwood, the earnest collector of contemporary
gossip and documents, assures us that when the man
in the turret could not be found, the first pro-
clamation identified him with a Mr. Eobert Oliphant,
a ' black grim man,' but that Oliphant proved his
absence from Perth. One Gray and one Lesley were
also suspected, and one Younger (hiding when sought
for, it is said) was killed. But we have no copy of
the proclamation as to Mr. Eobert Oliphant. To Mr.
Eobert Oliphant, who had an alibi, we shall return,
for this gentleman, though entirely overlooked by
our historians, was probably at the centre of the
situation (p. 71, infra).

Meanwhile, whatever Henderson had done, he
mysteriously vanished from Gowrie House, during or
after the turmoil, ' following darkness like a dream.7
Nobody was produced who could say anything about
seeing Henderson, after MoncriefF and the Hays saw

first floor. Such a door existed, according to Lord Hailes, but
when he wrote (1757) 110 traces of this arrangement were extant. If
such a door there was, Henderson may have slunk into the hall, out of
the dark staircase, and slipped forth again, at the moment when
Robertson, in his first deposition, swore to having seen him. But
Murray of Arbany cannot well have been there at that moment, as he
was with the party of Lennox and Mar, battering at the door of the
gallery chamber. — Bisset, Essays in Historical Truth, pp. 228-237.
Hailes, Annals. Third Edition, vol. iii. p. 369. Note (1819).

HENDERSON'S NARRATIVE 63

him on his return from Falkland, at about ten o'clock
in the morning of August 5.

By August 12, Henderson was still in hiding, and

*< C7 O

was still being proclaimed for, with others, of whom
Mr. Robert Oliphant was not one : they were Mon-
crieff, Evict, and two Ruthvens.1 But, on August 11
at the Cross of Edinburgh, in presence of the King,
his chaplain, the Rev. Patrick Galloway, gave news
of Henderson. Mr. Galloway had been minister of
Perth, and a fierce Presbyterian of old.

Blow, Galloway, the trumpet of the Lord !

exclaimed a contemporary poet. But James had
tamed Galloway, he was now the King's chaplain, he
did not blow the trumpet of the Lord any longer,
and, I fear, was capable of anything. He had a
pension, Calderwood tells us, from the lands of Scone,
and knew Henderson, who, as Chamberlain, or
steward, paid the money. In his exciting sermon,
Galloway made a dramatic point. Henderson was
found, and Henderson was the man in the turret !
Galloway had received a letter from Henderson, in
his own hand ; any listener who knew Henderson's
hand might see the letter. Henderson tells his tale
therein ; Galloway says that it differs almost nothing
from the King's story, of which he had given an
abstract in his discourse. And he adds that Hender-
son stole downstairs while Ramsay was engaged with
the Master.2

1 Privy Council Register, vi. 149, 150. 2 Pitcairn, ii. 250.

64 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

Henderson, being now in touch with Galloway,
probably received promise of his life, and of reward,
for he came in before August 20, and, at the trial in
November, was relieved of the charge of treason, and
£ave evidence.

Here we again ask, Why did Henderson take to

flight ? What had he to do with the matter ? None
fled but those who had been seen, sword in hand,
in the fatal chamber, or stimulating the populace to
attack the Kino- during the tumult. Andrew Euthven,

O O

who had ridden to Falkland with Henderson and the
Master, did not run away, no proclamation for him
is on record. Nobody swore to seeing Henderson,
like his fellow fugitives, armed or active, yet he fled
and skulked. Manifestly Henderson had, in one way
or other, been suspiciously concerned in the affair.
He had come in, and was at Falkland, by August 20,
when he was examined before the Chancellor, Mont-
rose, the King's Advocate, Sir Thomas Hamilton, Sir
George Hume of Spot (later Earl of Dunbar), and
others, in the King's absence. He deponed that, on
the night of August 4, Gowrie bade him and Andrew
Euthven ride early to Falkland with the Master, and
return, if the Master ordered him so to do, with a
message. At Falkland they went into a house,1 and

1 Mr. Panton, who, in 1812, published at Perth, and with Long-
mans, a defence of the Ruthvens, is very strong on the improbability
that Henderson was at Falkland. Why were not the people to whose
house in Falkland he went, called as witnesses ? Indeed we do not
know. But as Mr. Panton looked on the King's witnesses as a gang
of murderous perjurers, it is odd that he did not ask himself why they,
and the King, did not perjure themselves on this point. (A Dissertation
on the Gowry Conspiracy, pp. 127-131.)

HENDERSON'S NARRATIVE 65

the Master sent him to learn what the King was
doing. He came back with the news ; the Master
talked with the King, then told Henderson to carry to
Gowrie the tidings of the King's visit, ' and that his
Majesty would be quiet.' Henderson asked if he was
to start at once. Euthven told him to wait till he
spoke to the King again. They did speak, at a gap
in a wall, during the check in the run ; Euthven
returned to Henderson, sent him off, and Henderson
reached Perth about ten o'clock. Gowrie, on his
arrival, left the company he was with (the two Hays),
and here George Hay's evidence makes Gowrie ask
Henderson ' who was with the King at Falkland ? ' Hay
said that Gowrie then took Henderson into another
room. Henderson says nothing about a question as
to the King's company, asked in presence of Hay,
a compromising and improbable question, if Gowrie
wished to conceal the visit to Falkland.

Apart, Gowrie put some other questions to
Henderson as to how the King received the Master.
Henderson then went to his house ; an hour later
Gowrie bade him put on his secret coat of mail,
and plate sleeves, as he had to arrest a Highlander.
Henderson did as commanded ; at twelve the steward
told him to bring up dinner, as Craigengelt (the
caterer) was ill. Dinner began at half-past twelve ;
at the second course the Master entered, Andrew
Euthven had arrived earlier. The company rose
from table, and Henderson, who was not at the
moment in the room, heard them moving, and

66 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

thought that they were ' going to make breeks
for Maconilduy,' that is, to catch the Highlander.
Finding he was wrong, he threw his steel gauntlet
into the pantry, and sent his boy to his house with
his steel cap. He then followed Gowrie to meet the
King, and, after he had fetched ' a drink ' (which James
says ' was long in coming '), the Master bade him
ask Mr. Ehynd, Gowrie's old tutor, for the key of
the gallery, which Ehynd brought to the Master.
Gowrie then went up, and spoke with the Master, and,
after some coming and going, Henderson was sent
to the Master in the gallery. Thither Gowrie re-
turned, and bade Henderson do whatever the Master
commanded. (The King says that Gowrie came
and went from the room, during his dinner.) The
Master next bade Henderson enter the turret, and
locked him in. He passed the time in terror and
in prayer.

There foUows the story of the entry of James
and the Master, and Henderson now avers that
he ' threw ' the dagger out of the Master's hand.
He declares that the Master said that he wanted
' a promise from the King,' on what point Gowrie
would explain. The rest is much as in the King's
account, but Henderson was 'pressing to have
opened the window,' he says, when the Master entered
for the second time, with the garter to bind the King's
hands. During the struggle Henderson removed the
Master's hand from the King's mouth, and opened
the window. The Master said to him, 'Wilt thou

HENDERSON'S NARRATIVE 67

not help ? Woe betide thee, thou wilt make us all
die.' 1

Henderson's later deposition, at the trial in No-
vember, was mainly, but not without discrepancies, to
the same effect as his first. He said that he prayed,
when alone in the turret, but omits the statement
(previously made by him) that he deprived Euthven of
his dagger, a very improbable tale, told falsely at first,
no doubt, as Eobertson the notary at first invented
his fable about meeting with Henderson, coming
out of the dark staircase. This myth Eobertson
narrated when examined in September, but omitted
it in the trial in November. Henderson now ex-
plained about his first opening the wrong window,
but he sticks to it that he took the garter from
Euthven, of which James says nothing. He vows
that he turned the key of the door on the staircase,
so that Eamsay could enter, whereas Eamsay averred
that he himself forced the door. Mr. Hudson
(James's resident at the Court of England), who in
October 1600 interviewed both Henderson and the
King, says that, in fact, the Master had not locked
the door, on his re-entry.2 Henderson slunk out
when Eamsay came in. He adds that it was his steel
cap which was put on Gowrie's head by a servant
(there was plenty of evidence that a steel cap was
thus put on).

1 Pitcairn, ii. 222, 223,

2 Hudson to Cecil, Oct. 19, 1600, Edinburgh, State Papers, Scotland
(Elizabeth), vol. Ixvi. No. 78.

68 THE GOWRTE MYSTERY

One singular point in Henderson's versions is this :
after Euthven, in deference to James's harangue in
the turret, had taken off his hat, the King said,
' What is it ye crave, man, if ye crave not my life ? '
4 Sir, it is but a promise,' answered Euthven. The
King asked 4 What promise ? ' and Euthven said that
his brother would explain. This tale looks like a con-
fusion made, by Henderson's memory, in a passage
in James's narrative. 'His Majesty inquired what
the Earl would do with him, since (if his Majesty's
life were safe, according to promise) they could gain
little in keeping such a prisoner.' Euthven then,
in James's narrative, said ' that the Earl would tell
his Majesty at his coming.' It appears that the word
4 promise ' in the Eoyal version, occurring at this point
in the story, clung to Henderson's memory, and so
crept into his tale. Others have thought that the
Euthvens wished to extort from James a promise
about certain money which he owed to Gowrie.
But to extort a promise, by secluding and threatening
the King, would have been highly treasonable and

O ^ v

dangerous, nor need James have kept a promise
made under duress.

Perhaps few persons who are accustomed to
weigh and test evidence, who know the weaknesses
of human memories, and the illusions which impose
themselves upon our recollections, will lay great
stress on the discrepancies between Henderson's first
deposition (in August), his second (in November), and
the statement of the King. In the footnote printed

HENDERSON'S NARRATIVE 69

below,1 Hudson explains the origin of certain differ-
ences between the King's narrative and Henderson's
evidence, given in August. Hudson declares that
James boasted of having taken the dagger out of
Euthven's hands (which, in fact, James does not do,
in his published narration), and that Henderson
claimed to have snatched the dagger away, ' to move
mercy by more merit.' It is clear that James would
not accept his story of disarming Euthven ; Henderson
omits that in his second deposition. For the rest,
James, who was quite clever enough to discover the
discrepancies, let them stand, at the end of his own
printed narrative, with the calm remark, that if any
differences existed in the depositions, they must be
taken as ' uttered by the deponer in his own behouf, for
obtaining of his Majesty's princely grace and favour.' 2
Henderson's first deposition was one of these which

1 James Hudson to Sir Robert Cecil.

' . . . I have had conference of this last acsyon, first wtb the King,
at lenght, & then wth Henderson, but my speache was first wth Hen-
derson befoar the King came over the waiter, betwixt whoame I fynde
no defference but yl boath alegethe takinge the dager frome Alexander
Ruthven, wch stryf on the one part maie seame to agrnent honor, &
on the other to move mersy by moar merit : it is plaen y* the King
only by god's help deffended his owin lyff wel & that a longe tynie, or
els he had lost it : it is not trew that Mr. Alex spok wtb his brother
when he went owt, nor that Henderson vnlokt the door, but hast &
neglect of Mr. Alex, left it opin, wherat Sr Jhon Ramsay entrid, &
after hime Sr Tho. Ereskyn Sr Hew Haris & Wilsone. Y* it is not
generally trustid is of mallice & preoccupassyon of mens mynds by
the minesters defidence at the first, for this people ar apt to beleve
the worst & loath to depart frome yl fayth.

• ••••••••

' Edinborow this 19 of October 1600.'
2 Pitcairn, ii. 218.

70 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

James printed with his own narrative, and thus
treated en prince. He was not going to harmonise
his evidence with Henderson's, or Henderson's with
his. On the other hand, from the first, Henderson had
probably the opportunity to frame his confession on the
Falkland letter of August 5 to the Chancellor, and
the Provost of Edinburgh ; and, later, on the printed
narrative officially issued at the close of August 1600.
He varied, when he did vary, in hopes of ' his
Majesty's princely grace and favour,' and he naturally
tried to make out that he was not a mere trembling
expostulating caitiff. He clung to the incident of
the garter which he snatched from the Master's hand.

Henderson had no Eoyal model for his account
of how he came to be in the turret, which James
could only learn from himself. Now that is the most
incredible part of Henderson's narrative. However
secret the Kuthvens may have desired to be, how
could they trust everything to the chance that the
town councillor of Perth, upper footman, and Cham-
berlain of Scone, would act the desperate part of
seizing a king, without training and without warn-
ing ?

But was Henderson unwarned and uninstructed,
or, did he fail after ample instruction ? That is the
difficult point raised by the very curious case of Mr.
Eobert Oliphant, which has never been mentioned, I
think, by the many minute students of this bewilder-
ing affair.

THE STRANGE CASE OF MR. ROBERT

0 LIP HA NT

SUPPOSE that men like the Euthvens, great and
potent nobles, had secretly invited their retainer,
Andrew Henderson, to take the role of the armed
man in the turret, what could Henderson have done ?
Such proposals as this were a danger dreaded even
by the most powerful. Thus, in March 1562, James
Hepburn, the wicked Earl of Bothwell, procured,
through John Knox, a reconciliation with his feudal
enemy, Arran. The brain of Arran was already, it
seems, impaired. A few days after the reconcilia-
tion he secretly consulted Knox on a delicate point.
Bothwell, he said, had imparted to him a scheme
whereby they should seize Queen Mary's person, and
murder her secretary, Lethington, and her half-
brother, Lord James Stuart, later Earl of Moray.
Arran explained to Knox that, if ever the plot came
to light, he would be involved in the crime of guilty
concealment of foreknowledge of treason. But, if he
divulged the plan, Bothwell would challenge him to
trial by combat. Knox advised secrecy, but Arran,

72 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

now far from sane, revealed the real or imagined
conspiracy.

To a man like Henderson, the peril in simply
listening to treasonable proposals from the Ruthvens
would be even greater. If he merely declined to be
a party, and kept silence, or fled, he lost his employ-
ment as Gowrie's man, and would be ruined. If the
plot ever came to light, he would be involved in
guilty concealment of foreknowledge. If he instantly
revealed to the King what he knew, his word would
not be accepted against that of Gowrie : he would
be tortured, to get at the very truth, and probably
would be hanged by way of experiment, to see if he
would adhere to his statement on the scaffold — a
fate from which Henderson, in fact, was only saved
by the King.

What then, if the Gowries offered to Henderson
the role of the man in the turret, could Henderson
do ? He could do what, according to James and to
himself, he did, he could tremble, expostulate, and
assure the King of his ignorance of the purpose
for which he was locked up, ' like a dog,' in the little
study.

That this may have been the real state of affairs
is not impossible. We have seen that Calderwood
mentions a certain Mr. Eobert Oliphant (Mr. means
Master of Arts) as having been conjectured at, im-
mediately after the tragedy, as the man in the turret.
He must therefore have been, and he was, a trusted
retainer of Gowrie. But Oliphant at once proved

THE STRANGE CASE OF MR. EGBERT OLIPHANT 73

an alibi ; he was not in Perth on August 5. His
name never occurs in the voluminous records of the
proceedings. He is not, like Henderson, among the
persons who fled, and for whom search was made,
as far as the documents declare, though Calderwood
says that he was described as a ' black grim man '
in ' the first proclamation.' If so, it looks ill for
James, as Henderson was a brown fair man. In
any case, Oliphant at once cleared himself.

But we hear of him again, though historians have

O ' O

overlooked the fact. Among the Acts of Caution
of 1600 — that is, the records of men who become
sureties for the good behaviour of others — is an entry
in the Privy Council Eegister for December 5, 1600.1
' Mr. Alexander Wilky in the Canongate for John
Wilky, tailor there, 200/., not to harm John Lyn,
also tailor there ; further, to answer when required
touching his (John Wilky's) pursuit of Lyn for
revealing certain speeches spoken to him by Mr.
Eobert Oliphant anent his foreknowledge of the
treasonable conspiracy of the late John, sometime
Earl of Gowrie.'

Thus Eobert Oliphant, M.A., had spoken to tailor
Lyn, or so Lyn had declared, about his own fore-
knowledge of the plot ; Lyn had blabbed ; tailor
Wilky had ' pursued ' or attacked Lyn ; and Alexander
Wilky, who was bailie of the Canongate, enters
into recognisances to the amount of 200/. that John
Wilky shall not further molest Lyn.

1 Privy Council Eegister, vi. 671.

74 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

Now what had Oliphant said ?

On the very day, December 5, when Alexander
Wilky became surety for the good behaviour of John
Wilky, Nicholson, the English resident at Holyrood,
described the facts to Eobert Cecil.1 Nicholson
says that, at a house in the Canongate, Mr. Eobert
Oliphant was talking of the Gowrie case. He was
a man who had travelled, and he inveighed against
the unfairness of Scottish procedure in the case of
Cranstoun.

We have seen that Mr. Thomas Cranstoun,
Gowrie's equerry, first brought to Lennox and others,
in the garden, the report that the King had ridden
away. We have seen that he was deeply wounded
by Eamsay just before or after Gowrie fell. Unable
to escape, he was taken, examined, tortured, tried on
August 22, and, on August 23, hanged at Perth. He
had invaded and wounded Herries, and Thomas
Erskine, and had encouraged the mob to beleaguer
the back gate of Gowrie House, against the King's
escape. He had been in France, he said, since 1589,
had come home with Gowrie, but, he swore, had not
spoken six words with the Euthvens during the last
fortnight.2 This is odd, as he was their Master
Stabler, and as they, by their friends' account, had
been making every preparation to leave for Dirleton,
which involved arrangements about their horses.

1 State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. Ixvi. No. 107.

2 Cranstoun mentioned his long absence in France to prove that he
was not another Mr. Thomas Cranstoun, a kinsman of his, who at this
time was an outlawed rebel, an adherent of Bothwell (p. 155, infra).

THE STRANGE CASE OF MR. ROBERT OLIPHANT 75

In any case, Mr. Eobert Oliphant, in a house
in the Canongate, in November or early December
1600, declared that Cranstoun, who, he said, knew
nothing of the conspiracy, had been hanged, while
Henderson, who was in the secret, and had taken the
turret part, escaped, and retained his position as
Chamberlain of Scone. Henderson, at the critical mo-
ment, had ' fainted,' said Oliphant ; that is, had failed
from want of courage. Oliphant went on to say that
he himself had been with Gowrie in Paris (February-
March 1600), and that, both in Paris and at home
in Scotland later, Gowrie had endeavoured to induce
him to take the part later offered to Henderson.
He had tried, but in vain, to divert Gowrie's mind
from his dangerous project. This talk of Oliphant's
leaked out (through Lyn as we know), and Oliphant,
says Nicholson, c fled again.' l

Of Oliphant we learn no more till about June

1 State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. Ixvi. No. 107.
' George Nicolson to Sir Robert Cecil.

• ••••••••

4 A man of Cannagate speaking that one Mr. Ro: Oliphant, lyeng at
his house, should haue complayned and said that "there was no justice
in Scotland, for favlters skaped fre and innocentis were punished. Mr.
Thomas Cranston was execute being innocent, and Henderson saued.
That therle of Go wry had moued that matter to him (Oliphant) in
Paris and here, that he had wth good reasons deverted him, that therle
thereon left him and delt wth Henderson hi that matter, that Henderson
vndertooke it and yet fainted, and Mr. Thomas Cranston knew nothing
of it and yet was executed." This I heare, and that this Oliphant that
was Gowries servant is, vpon this mans speache of it, againe fled.
The heades of Gowry and his brother are sett vpon the tolebuthe here
this day. .......

' Edenfc. the 5 of Decernb. 1600.'

76 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

1608. At that time, the King, in England, heard a
rumour that he had been connected with the con-
spiracy. A Captain Patrick Heron1 obtained a
commission to find Oliphant, and arrested him at
Canterbury : he was making for Dover and for France.
Heron seized Oliphant's portable property, ' eight
angels, two half rose-nobles, one double pistolet, two
French crowns and a half, one Albertus angel ; two
English crowns ; one Turkish piece of gold, two gold
rings, and a loose stone belonging to one ; three
Netherland dollars ; one piece of four royals ; two
quart decuria ; seven pieces of several coins of silver ;
two purses, one sword ; one trunk, one " mail," and
two budgetts.' Oliphant himself lay for nine months
in ' the Gate House of Westminster,' but Heron,
' careless to justify his accusation, and discovering
his aim in that business ' (writes the King), ' presently
departed from hence.' ' We have tried the innocency
of Mr. Eobert Oliphant,' James goes on, ' and have
freed him from prison.' The Scottish Privy Council
is therefore ordered, on March 6, 1609, to make
Heron restore Oliphant's property. On May 16,

1609, Heron was brought before the Privy Council in
Edinburgh, and was bidden to make restitution. He
was placed in the Tolbooth, but released by Lindsay,
the keeper of the prison. In March 1610, Oliphant
having again gone abroad, Heron expressed his

1 The Captain was ' a landless gentleman.' His wife owned
Ranfurdie, and the Captain, involved in a quarrel with Menteith of
Kers, had been accused of — witchcraft ! The Captain's legal affairs
may be traced in the Privy Council Begister.

THE STRANGE CASE OF MR. ROBERT OLIPHANT 77

readiness to restore the goods, except the trunk and
bags, which he had given to the English Privy
Council, who restored them to Eobert Oliphant.
The brother of Eobert, Oliphant of Bauchiltoun,
represented him in his absence, and, in 1611, Eobert
got some measure of restitution from Heron.

We know no more of Mr. Eobert Oliphant.1 His
freedom of talk was amazing, but perhaps he had been
drinking when he told the story of his connection
with the plot. By 1608 nothing could be proved
against him in London : in 1600, had he not fled
from Edinburgh in December, something might have
been extracted. We can only say that his version
of the case is less improbable than Henderson's.
Henderson — if approached by Gowrie, as Oliphant is
reported to have said that he was — could not divulge
the plot, could not, like Oliphant, a gentleman, leave
Perth, and desert his employment. So perhaps he
drifted into taking the role of the man in the turret.
If so, he had abundance of time to invent his most
improbable story that he was shut up there in igno-
rance of the purpose of his masters.

Henderson was not always of the lamblike de-
meanour which he displayed in the turret. On
March 5, 1601, Nicholson reports that 'Sir Hugh
Herries,' the lame doctor, ' and Henderson fell out
and were at offering of strokes,' whence ' revelations '

1 The proceedings of the English Privy Council at this point are
lost, unluckily. The Scottish records are in Privy Council Register,
1608-1611, s.v. Oliphant, Robert, in the Index.

78 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

were anticipated. They never came, and, for all that
we know, Herries may have taunted Henderson with
Oliphant's version of his conduct. He was pretty
generally suspected of having been in the conspiracy,
and of having failed, from terror, and then betrayed
his masters, while pretending not to have known why
he was placed in the turret.

It is remarkable that Herries did not appear as a
witness at the trial in November. He was knighted
and rewarded : every one almost was rewarded out
of Gowrie's escheats, or forfeited property. But that
was natural, whether James was guilty or innocent ;
and we repeat that the rewards, present or in pro-
spect, did not produce witnesses ready to say that
they saw Henderson at Falkland, or in the tumult,
or in the turret. Why men so freely charged with
murderous conspiracy and false swearing were so
dainty on these and other essential points, the ad-
vocates of the theory of perjury may explain. How
James treated discrepancies in the evidence we have
seen. His account was the true account, he would
not alter it, he would not suppress the discrepancies
of Henderson, except as to the dagger. Witnesses
might say this or that to secure the King's princely
favour. Let them say : the King's account is true.
This attitude is certainly more dignified, and wiser,
than the easy method of harmonising all versions
before publication. Meanwhile, if there were dis-
crepancies, they were held by sceptics to prove false-
hood ; if there had been absolute harmony, that

THE STRANGE CASE OF MR. ROBERT OLIPHANT 79

would really have proved collusion. On one point I
suspect suppression at the trial. Almost all versions
aver that Bamsay, or another, said to Gowrie, 4 You
have slain the King,' and that Gowrie (who certainly
did not mean murder) then dropped his points and
was stabbed. Of this nothing is said, at the trial, by
any witnesses.

80 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

VII

THE CONTEMPORARY RUTHVEN
VINDICATION

WE now come to the evidence which is most fatally
damaging to the two unfortunate Euthvens. It is
the testimony of their contemporary Vindication.
Till a date very uncertain, a tradition hung about
Perth that some old gentlemen remembered having

O O

seen a Vindication of the Euthvens ; written at
the time of the events.1 Antiquaries vainly asked
each other for copies of this valuable apology. Was
it printed, and suppressed by Eoyal order ? Did it
circulate only in manuscript ?

In 1812 a Mr. Panton published a vehement
defence of the Euthvens. Speaking of the King's
narrative, he says, ' In a short time afterwards a reply,
or counter manifesto, setting forth the matter in its
true light, written by some friend of the Euthven
family, made its appearance. The discovery of this
performance would now be a valuable acquisition;
but there is no probability that any such exists, as

1 See the Rev. Mr. Scott's Life of John, Earl of Gowrie. Mr.
Scott, at a very advanced age, published this work in 1818. He relied
much on tradition and on anonymous MSS. of the eighteenth century.

THE CONTEMPORARY RUTH YEN VINDICATION 81

the Government instantly ordered the publication to
be suppressed. . . .'

The learned and accurate Lord Hailes, writing in
the second half of the eighteenth century (1757), says,
6 It appears by a letter of Sir John Carey, Governor '
(really Deputy Governor) ' of Berwick, to Cecil, 4th
September, 1600, that some treatise had been pub-
lished in Scotland, in vindication of Gowrie.' That
' treatise,' or rather news-letter, unsigned, and over-
looked by our historians (as far as my knowledge
goes), is extant in the Eecord Office.1 We can
identify it as the document mentioned by Carey
to Cecil in his letter of September 4, 1600. Carey
was then in command of Berwick, the great Eng-
lish frontier fortress, for his chief, ' the brave Lord
Willoughby,' was absent on sick leave. On Sep-
tember 4, then, from Berwick, Carey wrote to Sir
Eobert Cecil, ' I have thought good to send you such '
(information) ' as I have received out of Scotland
this morning on both sides, both on the King's part
and the Earl's part, that you may read them both
together.'

Now we possess a manuscript, ' The Verie Maner
of the Erll of Gowrie and his brother their Death,
quha war killit at Perth, the fyft of August, by the
Kingis Servanttis, his Majestie being present.' This
paper is directed to 'My Lord Governor,' and, as
Carey was acting for ' My Lord Governor,' Lord

1 State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. Ixvi. No. 52. For the
document see Appendix B.

82 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

Willoughby, at Berwick, he received and forwarded
the document to Cecil. This is the Vindication, at
least I know no other, and no printed copy, though
Nicholson writes that a ' book on the Euthven side
was printed in England' (October 28, 1600).

The manuscript is in bad condition, in parts
illegible ; acids appear to have been applied to
it. The story, however, from the Gowrie side, can
be easily made out. It alleges that, ' on Saturday,
August 1 ' (really August 2), the lame Dr. Herries
came, on some pretext, to Gowrie's house. ' This
man by my Lord was convoyed through the house,
and the secret parts shown him.'

Now there was no ' secret part ' in the house, as
far as the narratives go. The entry to the narrow
staircase was inconspicuous, but was noticed by
Eamsay, and, of course, was familiar to Gowrie and
his men. On Tuesday, the fatal day (according to
the Euthven Vindication), Gowrie's retainers were
preparing to go with him ' to Lothian,' that is to
Dirleton, a castle of his on the sea, hard by North
Berwick. The narrator argues, as all the friends of
the Euthvens did, that, if Gowrie had intended any
treason, his men would not have been busy at their
houses with preparations for an instant removal. The
value of this objection is null. If Gowrie had a plot,
it probably was to carry the King to Dirleton with
him, in disguise.

The Master, the apology goes on, whom the King
had sent for ' divers times before, and on August 5,'

THE CONTEMPORARY RUTHVEN VINDICATION 83

rode early to Falkland, accompanied by Andrew
Euthven, and Andrew Henderson. None of James's
men, nor James himself, as we have remarked, saw
Henderson at Falkland, and modern opponents of the
King deny (as the aforesaid Mr. Panton does) that
he was there. Here they clash with ' The Verie
Manner ' &c. issued at the time by Gowrie's defen-
ders. It avers that the Master, and his two men, did
not intend to return from Falkland to Perth. They
meant to sleep at Falkland on the night of the Fifth,
and meet Gowrie, next day, August 6, 'at the water-
side,' and cross with him to the south coast of the
Firth of Forth, thence riding on (as other friendly
accounts allege) to Dirleton, near North Berwick.
' And Andrew Henderson's confessions testified this.'
As published, they do nothing of the sort. The
Master ' took his lodging in Falkland for this night.'
Hearing that James was to hunt, the Master
breakfasted, and went to look for him. After a con-
versation with James, he bade Henderson ride back
to Perth, and tell Gowrie that, 'for what occasion he
knew not,' the King was coming. Now after they all
arrived at Perth, the Master told Gowrie's caterer,
Craigengelt, that the King had come, 'because
Eobert Abercrombie, that false knave, had brought
the King there, to make his Majesty take order for
his debt.' l This fact was stated by Craigengelt him-

1 James himself, being largely in Abercromby's debt, in 1594 gave
him ' twelve monks' portions ' of the Abbacy of Cupar. — Act. Parl
Scot. iv. 83, 84.

G 2

84 THE GOWEIE MYSTERY

self, under examination. If Kuthven spoke the
truth, he did know the motive, or pretext, of the
King's coming, which the apologist denies. But Kuth-
ven was not speaking the truth ; he told Craigengelt,
as we saw, that he had been ' on an errand not
far off.'

As to the debt, James owed Gowrie a large sum,
with accumulated interest, for expenses incurred by
Gowrie's father, when Lord Treasurer of Scotland
(1583-1584). James, in June 1600, as we shall see,
gave Gowrie a year's respite from the pursuit of his
father's creditors, hoping to pay him in the meanwhile.
Whether this exemption would not have defended
Gowrie from Eobert Abercromby ; whether James
would act as debt collector for Eobert Abercromby (a
burgess of Edinburgh, the King's saddler), the reader
may decide. But the Master gave to Craigengelt this
reason for James's unexpected arrival, though his
contemporary apologist says, as to James's motive
for coming to Perth, that the Master ' knew nothing?

Henderson having cantered off with his message,
James rode to Perth (nothing is said by the apologist
of the four hours spent in hunting), ' accompanied by
sixty horsemen, of whom thirty came a little before
him.' No trace of either the sixty or the thirty
appears anywhere in the evidence. ISTo witness
alludes to the arrival of any of the King's party in
front of him. On hearing from Henderson of the
King's approach, says the Vindication, Gowrie, who
was dining, ordered a new meal to be prepared. All

THE CONTEMPOEARY RUTHVEN VINDICATION 85

the other evidence shows that Henderson came back
to Perth long before Gowrie dined, and that neverthe-
less Gowrie made no preparations at all. Gowrie,
with four others, then met the King, on the Inch of
Perth says the apologist. James kissed him when
they met, the kiss of Judas, we are to understand.
He entered the house, and all the keys were given to
James's retainers. The porter, as we saw, really had
the keys, and Gowrie opened the garden gate with
one of them. The apologist is mendacious.

Dinner was soon over. James sent the Master to
bid Eamsay and Erskine c follow him to his cham-
ber, where his Majesty, Sir Thomas Erskine, John
Ramsay, Dr. Herries, and Mr. Wilson, being convened,
slew the Master, and threw him down the stair, how,
and for what cause they [know best] themselves.' Of
course it is absolutely certain that the Master did not
bring the other three men to James, in the chamber
where the Master was first wounded. Undeniably
Herries, Eamsay, and Erskine were not brought by the
Master, at James's command, to this room. They did
not enter it till after the cries of ' Treason ' were yelled
by James from the window of the turret. A servant
of James's, saj^s the apologist, now brought the
news that the King had ridden away. Cranstoun,
Gowrie's man, really did this, as he admitted. Gowrie,
the author goes on, hearing of James's departure,
called for his horse, and went out into the street.
There he stood ' abiding his horse.' Now Cranstoun,
as he confessed, had told Gowrie that his horse was

86 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

at Scone, two miles away. By keeping his horses
there, Gowrie made it impossible for him to accom-
pany the Boyal retinue as they went on their useless
errand (p. 21, supra). In the street Gowrie 'hears his
Majesty call on him out at the chamber window, " My
Lord of Gowrie, traitors has murdered your brother
already, and ye suffer me to be murdered also ! '

Nobody else heard this, and, if Gowrie heard it,
how inept it was in him to go about asking ' What
is the matter ? ' He was occupied thus while Lennox,
Mar, and the others were rushing up the great stair-
case to rescue the King. James, according to the
Euthven apologist, had told Gowrie what the matter
was, his brother was slain, and slain by Erskine, who,
while the Earl asked ' What is the matter ? ' was try-
ing to collar that distracted nobleman. The Master
had brought Erskine to the King, says the apologist,
Erskine had slain the Master, yet, simultaneously, he
tried to seize Gowrie in the street. Erskine was in
two places at once. The apology is indeed ' a valu-
able acquisition.' Gowrie and Cranstoun, and they
alone, the apologist avers, were now permitted by
James's servants to enter the house. We know that
many of James's men were really battering at the
locked door, and we know that others of Gowrie's
people, besides Cranstoun, entered the house, and
were wounded in the scuffle. Cranstoun himself
says nothing of any opposition to their entry to the
house, after Gowrie drew his two swords.

Cranstoun, according to the apologist, first entered

THE CONTEMPORARY RUTHVEN VINDICATION 87

the chamber, alone, and was wounded, and drawn
back by Gowrie — which Cranstoun, in his own
statement, denies. After his wounds he fled, he says,
seeing no more of Gowrie. Then, according to the
apologist, Gowrie himself at last entered the cham-
ber ; the King's friends attacked him, but he was too
cunning of fence for them. They therefore parleyed,
and promised to let him see the King (who was in
the turret). Gowrie dropped his points, Eamsay
stabbed him, he died committing his soul to God,
and declaring that he was a true subject.

This narrative, we are told by its author, is
partly derived from the King's men, partly from the
confessions of Cranstoun, Craigengelt, and Baron
(accused of having been in the chamber-fight, and
active in the tumult). All these three were tried
and hanged. The apologist adds that James's com-
panions will swear to whatever he pleases. This
was unjust ; Eamsay would not venture to recognise
the man of whom he caught a glimpse in the turret,
and nobody pretended to have seen Henderson at
Falkland, though the presence of Henderson at Falk-
land and in the chamber was an essential point. But,
among the King's crew of perjurers, not a man
swore to either fact.

What follows relates to Gowrie's character ;
4 he had paid all his father's debts,' which most
assuredly he had not done. As to the causes of his
taking off, they are explained by the apologist, but
belong to a later part of the inquiry.

88 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

Such was the contemporary Vindication of Gow-
rie, sent to Carey, at Berwick, for English reading,
and forwarded by Carey to Cecil. The narrative is
manifestly false, on the points which we have noted.
It is ingeniously asserted by the vindicator that
a servant of James brought the report that he had
ridden away. It is not added that the false report
was really brought by Cranstoun, and twice con-
firmed by Gowrie, once after he had gone to make
inquiry upstairs. Again, the apologist never even
hints at the locked door of the gallery chamber,
whereat Mar, Lennox, and the rest so long and so
vainly battered. Who locked that door, and why ?
The subject is entirely omitted by the apologist. On
the other hand, the apologist never alludes to the
Murrays, who were in the town. Other writers soon
after the events, and in our own day, allege that
James had arranged his plot so as to coincide with
the presence of the Murrays in Perth. What they
did to serve him we have heard. John Murray was
wounded by a Euthven partisan after the Earl and
Master were dead. Some Murrays jostled Gowrie,
before he rushed to his death. Young Tullibardine
helped to pacify the populace. That is all. Nothing
more is attributed to the Murrays, and the con-
temporary apologist did not try to make capital out
of them.

Though the narrative of the contemporary apo-
logist for the Euthvens appears absolutely to lack
evidence for its assertions, it reveals, on analysis, a

THE CONTEMPORARY RUTHVEN VINDICATION 89

consistent theory of the King's plot. It may not be
verifiable ; in fact it cannot be true, but there is a
theory, a system, which we do not find in most con-
temporary, or in more recent arguments. James,
by the theory, is intent on the destruction of the
Euthvens. His plan was to bring the Master to
Falkland, and induce the world to believe that it was
the Master who brought him to Perth. The Master
refuses several invitations ; at last, on his way to
Dirleton, he goes to Falkland, taking with him
Andrew Euthven and Andrew Henderson. The old
apologist asserts, what modern vindicators deny, that
Henderson was at Falkland.

Then the Master sends Henderson first, Andrew
Euthven later, to warn Gowrie that, for some un-
known reason, the King is coming. To conceal hi&
bloody project (though the apologist does not men-
tion the circumstance), James next passes four hours
in hunting. To omit this certain fact is necessary
for the apologist's purpose. The King sends thirty
horsemen in front of him, and follows with thirty
more. After dinner he leaves the hall with the
Master, but sends him back for Erskine, Wilson,
and Eamsay. James having secured their help, and
next lured the Master into a turret, the minions
kill Euthven and throw his body downstairs ; one
of them, simultaneously, is in the street. James has
previously arranged that one of his servants shall
give out that the King has ridden away. This he
does announce at the nick of time (though Gowrie's

90 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

servant did it), so that Gowrie shall go towards the
stables (where he expects to find his horse, though
he knows it is at Scone), thus coming within earshot
of the turret window. Thence James shouts to Gowrie
that traitors are murdering him, and have murdered
the Master. Now this news would bring, not only
Gowrie, but all the Eoyal retinue, to his Majesty's
assistance. But, as not knowing the topography of
the house, the retinue, James must have calculated,
will run up the main stairs, to rescue the King.
Their arrival would be inconvenient to the King (as
the nobles would find that James has only friends

with him, not traitors), so the King has had the door
locked (we guess, though we are not told this by the
apologist) to keep out Lennox, Mar, and the rest.
Gowrie, however, has to be admitted, and killed, and
Gowrie, knowing the house, will come, the King
calculates, by the dark stair, and the unlocked door.
Therefore James's friends, in the street, will let him
and Cranstoun enter the house ; these two alone, and
no others with them. They, knowing the narrow
staircase, go up that way, naturally. As naturally,
Gowrie lets Cranstoun face the danger of four hostile
swords, alone. Waiting till Cranstoun is disabled,
Gowrie then confronts, alone, the same murderous
blades, is disarmed by a ruse, and is murdered.

This explanation has a method, a system. Unfor-
tunately it is contradicted by all the evidence now to
be obtained, from whatever source it comes, retainers
of Gowrie, companions of James, or burgesses of

THE CONTEMPOKARY RUTHVEN VINDICATION 91

Perth. We must suppose that Gowrie, with his
small force of himself and Cranstoun, both fencers
from the foreign schools, would allow that force to be
cut off in detail, one by one. We must suppose that
Erskine was where he certainly was not, in two places
at once, and that Eamsay and Herries and he, unseen,
left the hall and joined the King, on a message
brought by the Master, unmarked by any witness.
We must suppose that the King's witnesses, who pro-
fessed ignorance on essential points, perjured them-
selves on others, in batches. But, if we grant that
Mar, Lennox, and the rest — gentlemen, servants,
retainers and menials of the Euthvens, and citizens
of Perth- -were abandoned perjurers on some points,
while scrupulously honourable on others equally
essential, the narrative of the Euthven apologist
has a method, a consistency, which we do not find in
modern systems unfavourable to the King.

For example, the modern theories easily show
how James trapped the Master. He had only to
lure him into a room, and cry ' Treason.' Then, even
if untutored in his part, some hot-headed young man
like Eamsay would stab Euthven. But to deal with
Gowrie was a more difficult task. He would be out
in the open, surrounded by men like Lennox and
Mar, great nobles, and his near kinsmen. They
would attest the innocence of the Earl. They must
therefore be separated from him, lured away to
attack the locked door, while Gowrie would stand
in the street asking ' What is the matter ? ' though

92 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

James had told him, and detained by the Murrays till
they saw fit to let him and Cranstoun go within the
gate, alone. Then, knowing the topography, Gowrie
and Cranstoun would necessarily make for the murder-
chamber, by the dark stair, and perish. The Eoyal wit
never conceived a subtler plot, it is much cleverer
than that invented by Mr. G. P. E. James, in his novel,
' Gowrie.' Nothing is wrong with the system of the
apologist, except that the facts are false, and the
idea a trifle too subtle, while, instead of boldly saying
that the King had the gallery chamber locked against
his friends, the apologist never hints at that circum-
stance.

We have to help the contemporary vindicator
out, by adding the detail of the locked door (which
he did not see how to account for and therefore
omitted), and by explaining that the King had it
locked himself, that Lennox, Mar, and the rest might
not know the real state of the case, and that Gowrie
might be trapped through taking the other way, by
the narrow staircase.

An author so conspicuously mendacious as he
who wrote the Apology for English consumption is
unworthy of belief on any point. It does not foUow
that Henderson was really at Falkland because the
apologist says that he was. But it would appear
that this vindicator could not well deny the circum-
stance, and that, to work it conveniently into his
fable, he had to omit the King's hunting, and to
contradict the Hays and Moncrieff by making Hender-

THE CONTEMPORARY RUTHVEN VINDICATION 93

son arrive at Perth after twelve instead of about
ten o'clock.

The value of the Apology, so long overlooked, is
to show how very poor a case was the best that the
vindicator of the Euthvens was able to produce.
But no doubt it was good enough for people who
wished to believe.1

1 Mr. Henderson, in his account of William, Earl of Gowrie, in
the Dictionary of National Biography, mentions ' The Vindication of
the Ruthvens ' in his list of authorities. He does not cite the source,
as in MS. or hi print ; and I know not whether he refers to ' The Verie
Manner &c.,' State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. Ixvi. No. 52. The
theory of Mr. Scott (1818) is much akin to that of 'The Verie Manner,'
which he had never seen.

94 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

YIII
THE THEORY OF AN ACCIDENTAL BE AWL

So far, the King's narrative is least out of keeping
with probability.

But had James been insulted, menaced, and
driven to a personal struggle, as he declared? Is
the fact not that, finding himself alone with Euthven,
and an armed man (or no armed man, if you believe
that none was there), James lost his nerve, and cried
' Treason ! ' in mere panic ? The rest followed from
the hot blood of the three courtiers, and the story
of James was invented, after the deaths of the Gow-
ries, to conceal the truth, and to rob by forfeiture
the family of Euthven. But James had certainly
told Lennox the story of Euthven and the pot of
gold, before they reached Perth. If he came with
innocent intent, he had not concocted that story as
an excuse for coming.

We really must be consistent. Mr. Barbe, a
recent Euthven apologist, says that the theory of an
accidental origin of c the struggle between James
and Euthven may possibly contain a fairly accurate
conjecture.' l But Mr. Barbe also argues that James
had invented the pot of gold story before he left

1 Barbe, p. 124.

THE THEOKY OF AN ACCIDENTAL BRAWL 95

Falkland ; that, if James was guilty, ' the pretext had
been framed ' — the myth of the treasure had been
concocted — ' long before their meeting in Falkland,
and was held in readiness to use whenever circum-
stances required.' If so, then there is no room at
all for the opinion that the uproar in the turret was
accidental, but Mr. Barbe's meaning is that James thus
forced a quarrel on Euthven. For there was no captive
with a pot of gold, nor can accident have caused the
tragedy, if Euthven lured James to Falkland with the
false tale of the golden hoard. That tale, confided
by James to Lennox on the ride to Perth, was either
an invention of the King's — in which case James is
the crafty conspirator whom Mr. Bruce, in 1602,
did not believe him to be (as shall be shown) ; — or it
is true that Euthven brought James to Perth by
the feigned story — in which case Euthven is a con-
spirator. I reject, for reasons already given, the
suggestion that Lennox perjured himself, when he
swore that James told him about Euthven's narrative
as to the captive and his hoard. For these reasons
alone, there is no room for the hypothesis of acci-
dent : either James or Euthven was a deliberate
traitor. If James invented the pot of gold, he is the
plotter : if Euthven did, Euthven is guilty. There
is no via media, no room for the theory of accident.

The via media, the hypothesis of accident, was
suggested by Sir William Bowes, who wrote out
his theory, in a letter to Sir John Stanhope, from
Bradley, on September 2, 1600. Bowes had been

96 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

English ambassador in Scotland, probably with the
usual commission to side with the King's enemies,
and especially (much as Elizabeth loathed her own
Puritans) with the party of the Kirk. His coach
had been used for the kidnapping of an English
gentleman then with James, while the Governor of
Berwick supplied a yacht, in case it seemed better to
carry off the victim by sea (1599). Consequently
Bowes was unpopular, and needed, and got, a guard
of forty horsemen for his protection. He was no
friend, as may be imagined, of the King.

Bowes had met Preston, whom James sent to
Elizabeth with his version of the Gowrie affair.
Bowes's theory of it all was this : James, the Master,
4 and one other attending ' (the man of the turret)
were alone in a chamber of Gowrie House. Speech
arose about the late Earl of Gowrie, Euthven's father,
whether by occasion of his portrait on the wall, or
otherwise. ' The King angrily said he was a traitor,
whereat the youth showing a grieved and expostu-
latory countenance, and haplie Scotlike words, the
King, seeing himself alone and without weapon, cried
Treason ! ' The Master placed his hand on James's
mouth, and knelt to deprecate his anger, but Earn-
say stabbed him as he knelt, and Gowrie was slain,
Preston said, after Eamsay had made him drop his
guard by crying that the King was murdered. The
tale of the conspiracy was invented by James to
cover the true state of the case.1

1 State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. Ixvi. No. 64.

THE THEORY OF AN ACCIDENTAL BRAWL 97

This Bowes only puts forth as a working hypo-
thesis. It breaks down on the King's narrative to
Lennox about Euthven's captive and hoard. It
breaks down on c one other attending ' — the man in
the turret — whatever else he may have been, he was
no harmless attendant. It breaks down on the locked
door between the King, and Lennox and Mar, which
Bowes omits. It is ruined by Gowrie's repeated
false assurances that the King had ridden away,
which Bowes ignores.

The third hypothesis, the via media, is impossible.
There was a deliberate plot on one side or the other.
To make the theory of Bowes quite clear, his letter
is appended to this section.1

1 State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. Ixvi. No. 64.

Sir William Bowes to Sir John Stanhope, Sept. 2, 1600.

Sr I attending hir Mties embassadr toward Newcastle happened to
meet wyth Mr Preston then on his waie from his king to hir Mtie. In
renewing a former acquaintance,! found hy.nr verie willing to possesse
me wyth his report of the death'of Gowrie and his brother, in the cir-
cumstances wherof sundrie ibingis- occurring Ji^fvilie probable I was
not curious to lett him 3ee that wyse men wv^'vs stumbled therat.
And therfor I thought yt wysdom in the king to deliuer his honor to
the warld and espeaiallie to her Mtie. And in this as in other albeit I
am not ignorant that.^he actions of princes must chalenge the Fairest
interpretation Yet because in deed truthe symplie canne doe no wrong
And that we owe o dearest and nearest truthes to or soueraygnes in
this matter so precisely masked lett me deliuer to^youe what For myne
own part I doe belieue.

The King being readfe tc take hcrse was* v/j'iihctrawen in discourse
with the Mr of Gowrie, a learned swee£ and. hurtles yong gentleman,
and one other attending. Now_were it b;y occasion of a picture (as is
sayde) or otherwise, speech happening of Earle Gowrie his father
executed, the king angrelie sayde he was a traitour, whereat the youth
showing a greeved and expostulatorie countenance and happelie Scot-
like Woordis, the King, seeing hymself alone and wythout weapon, cryed,
Treason, Treason. The Mr abashed much to see the king so apprehend

3I/C

c f

98 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

yt, whilest the king wold call to the Lords, the Dnke, Marre, and others
that were attending in the court on the king comming to horse, putt
his hand with earnest deprecations to staie the king, showing his
countenance to them wythout in that moode, immediatlie falling on
his knees to entreat the King. At the K. sound of Treason, from out
of the Lower Chamber hastelie running Harris the physician Ramsey
his page and Sr Thomas Erskyn came to where the king was Where
Ramsey runne the poore gentleman thorough, sitting as is saide vpon
his knees.

At this stirr the earle wyth his Mr Stablere and somme other, best
knowing the howse and the wayes, came first to the slaughter where
finding his brother dead and the king retyred (For they had perswaded
hym into a countinghouse) some fight beganne between the earle and
the others. Mr Preston saies that vpon thar relation that the king was
slayne the earle shronke from the pursuyte, and that one of the afor-
named rushing sodainlee to the earle thrust hym through that he fell
down and dyed. This matter seeming to haue an accidentall begin-
ning, to gyve it an honorable cloake is pursued wyth odious treasons
coniurations &c. imputed to the dead earle, wyth the death of the
Mr Stabler, Wyth making knyghtis the actor% And manye others such as
I know are notified to you long ere this. The ministers as I heare are
asked to make a thankgyving to god, where they think more need of
Fasting in Sackclothe and Ashes, to the kingis much discontenting.
This I must not saie (as the scholers terme yt) to be categoricallie true,
but heupatheticallie l I take yt so to be. Wherevpon maie be inferred
that as the death of the^ twoe Fii-^t .maie be excused by tendering the

• •* /l I 1 it j 1 * "¥""•" ' *.ll^ 1* P 1** "1 • J •

From Bradley ^Ms«2de of Sept.

Yor poore Frend'to commannd.

WILLM. BOWES.

• **\ ., . ' Hypothetically ? '

IX
CONTEMPORARY CLERICAL CRITICISM

THE most resolute sceptics as to the guilt of the
Ruthvens were the Edinburgh preachers. They were
in constant opposition to the King, and the young
Gowrie was their favourite nobleman. As to what
occurred when the news of the tragedy reached
Edinburgh, early on July 6, we have the narrative of
Mr. Eobert Bruce, then the leader of the Presby-
terians. His own version is printed in the first
volume of the Bannatyne Club Miscellany, and is
embodied, with modifications, and without acknow-
ledgment (as references to such sources were usually
omitted at that period), in Calderwood's History.

It is thus better to follow Mr. Bruce's own
account, as far as it goes.

The preachers heard the ' bruit,' or rumour of
the tragedy, by nine o'clock on the morning of
August 6. By ten o'clock arrived a letter from
James to the Privy Council: the preachers were
called first ' before the Council of the town,' and the
King's epistle was read to them. ' It bore that his
Majesty ivas delivered out of a peril, and therefore
that we should be commanded to go to our Kirks,

H 2

100 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

convene our people, ring bells, and give God praises.'
While the preachers were answering, the Privy Council
sent for the Provost and some of the Town Council.

The preachers then went to deliberate in the
East Kirk, and decided ' that we could not enter
into the particular defence of (the existence of?)
' the treason, seeing that the King was silent of the
treason in his own letter, and the reports of courtiers
varied among themselves.'

This is not easily intelligible. The letter from
Falkland of which Nicholson gives an account on
August 6, was exceedingly ' particular as to the
treason.' It is my impression, based mainly on the
Burgh Eecords quoted by Pitcairn, that the letter
with full particulars cited by Nicholson, was written,
more or less officially, by the notary, David Moysie,
who was at Falkland, and that the Kinsf's letter was

7 O

brief, only requiring thanksgiving to be offered. Yet
Nicholson says that the letter with details (written
by the King he seems to think), was meant for the
preachers as well as for the Privy Council (cf. p. 38,
note).

The preachers, in any case, were now brought
before the Privy Council and desired, by Montrose,
the Chancellor, to go to church, and thank God for the
King's ' miraculous delivery from that vile treason.'
They replied that ' they could not be certain of the
treason,' but would speak of delivery ' from a great
danger.' Or they would wait, and, when quite sure
of the treason, would blaze it abroad.

CONTEMPORARY CLERICAL CRITICISM 101

' They ' (the Council) ' said it should be sufficient
to read his Majesty's letter.'

This appears to mean that the preachers would
content the Lords by merely reading James's letter
aloud to the public.

' We answered that we could not read his letter '
(aloud to the people ? ) ' and doubt of the truth of it.
It would be better to say generally, " if the report be
true," '

The preachers would have contented the Lords
by merely reading James's letter aloud to their con-
gregations. But this they declined to do ; they
wished, in the pulpit, to evade the Royal letter, and
merely to talk, conditionally, of the possible truth
of the report, or ' bruit.' This appears to have been
a verbal narrative brought by Graham of Balgonie,
which seemed to vary from the long letter probably
penned by Moysie. At this moment the Eev. David
Lindsay, who had been at Falkland, and had heard
James's story from his own mouth, arrived. He,
therefore, was sent to tell the tale publicly, at the
Cross. The Council reported to James that the six
Edinburgh preachers ' would in no ways praise God
for his delivery.' In fact, they would only do so in
general terms.

On August 12, James took the preachers to task.
Bruce explained that they could thank, and on
Sunday had thanked God for the King's delivery,
but could go no further into detail, ' in respect we
had no certainty.' ' Had you not my letter ? ' asked

102 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

the King. Bruce replied that the letter spoke only
' of a danger in general.' Yet the letter reported
by Nicholson was ' full and particular,' but that letter
the preachers seem to have regarded as unofficial.
' Could not my Council inform you of the particulars ? '
asked the King. The President (Fyvie, later Chan-
cellor Dunfermline) said that they had assured the
preachers of the certainty of the treason. On this
Bruce replied that they had only a report, brought
orally by Balgonie, and a letter by Moysie, an
Edinburgh notary then at Falkland, and that these
testimonies ' fought so together that no man could
have any certainty.' The Secretary (Elphinstone,
later Lord Balmerino) denied the discrepancies.

James now asked what was the preachers'
present opinion ? They had heard the King him-
self, the Council, and Mar. Bruce replied that, as
a minister, he was not fully persuaded. Four of
the preachers adhered to their scepticism. Two,
Hewat and Eobertson, now professed conviction.
The other four were forbidden to preach, under
pain of death, and forbidden to come within ten
miles of Edinburgh. They offered terms, but these
were refused. The reason of James's ferocity was
that the devout regarded the preachers as the
mouthpieces of God, and so, if they doubted his
word, the King's character would, to the godly,
seem no better than that of a mendacious murderer.

From a modern point of view, the ministers,
if doubtful, had a perfect right to be silent, and

CONTEMPOEAEY CLERICAL CRITICISM 103

one of them, Hall, justly objected that he ought
to wait for the verdict in the civil trial of the dead
Euthvens. We shall meet this Hall, and Hewatt (one
of the two ministers who professed belief), in very
strange circumstances later (p. 217). Here it is enough
to have explained the King's motives for severity.

In September the recalcitrants came before the
King at Stirling. All professed to be convinced
(one, after inquiries in Fife), except Bruce. We
learn what happened next from a letter of his to
his wife. He had heard from one who had been at
Craigengelt's execution (August 23), that Craigen-
gelt had then confessed that Henderson had told
him how he was placed by Gowrie in the turret.1
Bruce had sent to verify this. Moreover he would
believe, if Henderson were hanged, and adhered
to his deposition to the last : a pretty experiment !
The Comptroller asked, ' Will you believe a con-
demned man better than the King and Council ? '
Mr. Bruce admitted that such was his theory of
the Grammar of Assent. ' If Henderson die peni-
tently I will trust him.' Later, as we shall see, this
«/

pleasing experiment was tried in another case, but,
though the witness died penitently, and clinging to
his final deposition, not one of the godly sceptics
was convinced.

'But Henderson saved the King's life,' replied
the Comptroller to Mr. Bruce,

4 As to that I cannot tell,' said Mr. Bruce, and

1 Calderwood, vi. 84.

104 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

added that, if Henderson took the dagger from
Euthven, he deserved to die for not sheathing it in
Euthven's breast.

Henderson later, we know, withdrew his talk
of his seizure of the dagger, which James had never
admitted. James now said that he knew not what
became of the dagger.

' Suppose,' said the Comptroller, ' Henderson
goes back from that deposition ? '

' Then his testimony is the worse,' said Mr. Bruce.

' Then it were better to keep him alive,' said the
Comptroller ; but Mr. Bruce insisted that Henderson
would serve James best by dying penitently. James
said that Bruce made him out a murderer. ' If I
would have taken their lives, I had causes enough '
(his meaning is unknown), ' I need not have ha-
zarded myself so.' By the ' causes,' can James have
meant Gowrie's attempts to entangle him in negotia-
tions with the Pope ? l These were alleged by Mr.
Galloway, in a sermon preached on August 11, in
the open air, before the King and the populace of
Edinburgh (see infra, p. 128).

Mar wondered that Bruce would not trust men
who (like himself) heard the King cry, and saw
the hand at his throat. Mr, Bruce said that Mar
might believe, ' as he were there to hear and see.'

He was left to inform himself, but Calderwood
says, that the story about Craigengelt's dying con-
fession was untrue. Bruce had frankly given the

1 Pitcairn, ii. 248 et seq.

CONTEMPORARY CLERICAL CRITICISM 105

lie to the King and Mar, though he remarked that
he had never heard Mar and Lennox tell the tale
fc out of their own mouths.' Mar later (September 24)
most solemnly assured Mr. Bruce by letter, that
the treason, ' in respect of that I saw,' was a certain
fact. This he professed 6 before God in heaven.'
Meanwhile Mr. Hall was restored to his Edinburgh
pulpit, and Mr. Bruce, after a visit to Restalrig,
a place close to Edinburgh and Leith, went into
banishment . l If he stayed with the Laird of Ees talrig,
he had, as will presently appear, a strange choice in
friends (pp. 148-167).

A later letter of Bruce's now takes up the tale.
In 1601, Bruce was in London, when Mar was there
as James's envoy. They met, and Bruce said he
was content to abide by the verdict in the Gowrie
trial of November 1600. What he boggled at, hence-
forward, was a public apology for his disbelief, an
acceptance, from the pulpit, of the King's veracity,
as to the events. In London, Bruce had found that
the Puritans, as to the guilt of Essex (which was
flagrant), were in the same position as himself, re-
garding the guilt of Gowrie.2 But they bowed to
the law, and so would he — ' for the present.'

The Puritans in England would not preach that
they were persuaded of the guilt of Essex, nor would
Bruce preach his persuasion of the guilt of Gowrie,
' from my knowledge and from my persuasion.' He

1 Calderwood, vi. 98. 2 Ibid. vi. 130.

106 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

assured Mar ' that it was not possible for any man to
be fully persuaded, or to take on their conscience,
but so many as saw and heard.' However Bruce
is self-contradictory. He would be persuaded, if
Henderson swung for it, adhering to his statement.
Such were Mr. Bruce's theories of evidence. He
added that he was not fully persuaded that there
was any hell to go to, yet probably he scrupled not
to preach ' tidings of damnation.' He wanted to be
more certain of Gowrie's guilt, than he was that there
is hell-fire. ' Spiteful taunts ' followed, Mar's re-
partee to the argument about hell being obvious.
Bruce must have asserted the existence of hell, from
the pulpit : though not ' fully persuaded ' of hell.
So why not assert the King's innocence ?

Bruce returned later to Scotland, and met the
King in April 1602. Now, he said, according to
Calderwood, that he was ' resolved,' that is, con-
vinced. What convinced him ? Mar's oath. ' How
could he swear ? ' asked James ; ' he neither saw nor
heard ' -that is, what passed between James, the man
in the turret, and the Master. ' I cannot tell you
how he could swear, but indeed he swore very
deeply,' said Bruce, and reported the oath, which
must have been a fine example. James took Bruce's
preference of Mar's oath to his own word very calmly.
Bruce was troubled about the exact state of affairs
between James and the Master. ' Doubt ye of that ? '
said the King, ' then ye could not but count me a
murderer.' ' It followeth not, if it please you, Sir,'

CONTEMPORARY CLERICAL CRITICISM 107

said Mr. Eobert, 'for ye might have had some secret
cause' l

Strange ethics ! A man may slay another, with-
out incurring the guilt of murder, if he has ' a secret
cause.' Bruce probably referred to the tattle about
a love intrigue between Gowrie, or Euthven, and the
King's wife. Even now, James kept his temper. He
offered his whole story to Bruce for cross-examina-
tion. ' Mr. Eobert uttered his doubt where he found
occasion. The King heard him gently, and with a
constant countenance, which Mr. Eobert admired.'
But Mr. Eobert would not preach his belief: would
not apologise from the pulpit. CI give it but a
doubtsome trust,' he said.

Again, on June 24, 1602, James invited cross-
examination. Bruce asked how he could possibly
know the direction of his Majesty's intention when
he ordered Eamsay to strike the Master. ;I will
give you leave to pose me ' (interrogate me), said
James.2

' Had you a purpose to slay rny Lord ? ' — that is,
Gowrie.

6 As I shall answer to God, I knew not that my
Lord was slain, till I saw him in his last agony, and
was very sorry, yea, prayed in my heart for the
same.'

4 What say ye then concerning Mr. Alexander ? '

4 1 grant I was art and part in Mr. Alexander's
slaughter, for it was in my own defence.'

1 Calderwood, vi. 147. 2 Ibid. vi. 156.

108 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

'Why brought you not him to justice, seeing you
should have God before your eyes ? '

' I had neither God nor the Devil, man, before
my eyes, but my own defence.'

' Here the King began to fret,' and no wonder.
He frankly said that ' he was one time minded to
have spared Mr. Alexander, but being moved for
the time, the motion ' (passion) ' prevailed.' He
swore, in answer to a question, that, in the morning,
he loved the Master ' as his brother.'

Bruce was now convinced that James left Falk-
land innocent of evil purpose, but, as he was in
a passion and revengeful, while struggling with the
Master, ' he could not be innocent before God.'

Here we leave Mr. Bruce. He signed a declara-
tion of belief in James's narrative ; public apologies
in the pulpit he would not make. He was banished
to Inverness, and was often annoyed and c put at,'
James reckoning him a firebrand.

The result, on the showing of the severe and
hostile Calderwood, is that, in Bruce's opinion, in
June 1602, James was guiltless of a plot against the
Euthvens. The King's crime was, not that strangely
complicated project of a double murder, to be in-
ferred from the Euthven apology, but words spoken
in the heat of blood. Betrayed, captured, taunted,
insulted, struggling with a subject whom he had
treated kindly, James cried to Eamsay ' Strike low ! '
He knew not the nature and extent of the conspiracy
against him, he knew not what knocking that was at

CONTEMPORARY CLERICAL CRITICISM 109

the door of the chamber, and he told Eamsay to
strike ; we have no assurance that the wounds were
deadly.

This is how the matter now appeared to Mr. Bruce.
The King swore very freely to the truth of his tale, and
that influenced Bruce, but the King's candour as to
what passed in his own mind, when he bade Eamsay
strike Euthven, is more convincing, to a modern critic,
than his oaths. For some reason, Bruce's real point,
that he was satisfied of the King's innocence of a
plot, but not satisfied as regards his yielding to
passion when attacked, is ignored by the advocates
of the Euthvens. Mr. Barbe observes : ' What slight

success there ever was remained on Bruce's side, for,
in one conference, he drew from the King the con-
fession that he might have saved Euthven's life, and
brought him to justice.' That confession shows un-
expected candour in James, but does not in the
slightest degree implicate him in a conspiracy, and of
a conspiracy even the rigid Bruce now acquitted the
King. Mr. Pitcairn, at first a strong King's man, in
an appendix to his third volume credits Bruce with
the best of the argument. This he does, illogically,
because the King never ceased to persecute Bruce,
whom he thought a firebrand. However wicked this
conduct of James may have been, it in no way affects
the argument as to his guilt in the conspiracy. Of that
Mr. Bruce acquitted the King. Calderwood's words
(vi. 156) are ' Mr. Eobert, by reason of his oaths,
thought him innocent of any purpose that day in the

110 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

morning to slay them. Yet because he confessed he
had not God or justice before his eyes, but was in a
heat and mind to revenge, he could not be innocent
before God, and had great cause to repent, and to
crave mercy for Christ's sake.' The thing is perfectly
clear. Bruce acquitted James of the infamous plot
against the Euthvens.1 What, then, was the position
of the Euthvens, if the King was not the conspirator ?
Obviously they were guilty, whether James, at a
given moment, was carried away by passion or not.

1 Mr. Bruce appears to have gone to France in 1599-1600, to call
Gowrie home. In a brief account of his own life, dictated by him-
self at about the age of seventy (1624), he says, ' I was in France
for the calling of the Master ' (he clearly means Earl) ' of Gowrie '
(Wodrow's ' Life of the Rev. Robert Bruce,' p. 10, 1843). Calderwood
possessed, and Wodrow (circ. 1715) acquired, two ' Meditations ' by
Mr. Bruce of August 3, 4, 1600. Wodrow promises to print them, but
does not, and when his book was edited in 1843, they could not be
found. He says that ' Mr. Bruce appears to have been prepared, in
Providence,' for his Gowrie troubles, judging (apparently) by these
{ Meditations.' But Mr. Henry Paton has searched for and found
the lost ' Meditations ' in MS., which are mere spiritual outpourings.
Wodrow's meaning is therefore obscure. Mr. Bruce had great celebrity
as a prophet, but where Wodrow found rophecy in the ' Meditations '
of August 3, 4, 1600, is not apparent (Wodrow's ' Bruce,' pp. 83, 84.
Wodrow MSS.| Advocates' Library, vol. xliv. No. 35).

Ill

POPULAR CRITICISM OF THE DAY

CALDEKWOOD has preserved for us the objections
taken by sceptics to the King's narrative.1 First, the
improbability of a murderous conspiracy, by youths so
full of promise and Presbyterianism as Gowrie and
his brother. To Gowrie's previous performances we
return later. The objection against a scheme of
murder hardly applies to a plan for kidnapping a
King who was severe against the Kirk.

The story of the pot of gold, and the King's
desire to inspect it and the captive who bore it,
personally, and the folly of thinking that one pot of
gold could suffice to disturb the peace of the country,
are next adversely criticised. We have already re-
plied to the criticism (p. 40). The story was well
adapted to entrap James VI.

The improbabilities of Euthven's pleas for haste
need not detain us : the King did not think them
probable.

Next it was asked ' Why did James go alone up-
stairs with Euthven ? '

He may have had wine enough to beget valour,
or, as he said, he may have believed that he was

1 Calderwood, vi. 49, 66-76.

112 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

being followed by Erskine. The two reasons may
well have combined.

'Why did not Gowrie provide better cheer, if
forewarned ? ' (by Henderson ?) it was asked.

To give the impression, we reply, that he was
taken by surprise, and that the King came uninvited
and unexpected.

' Why did Kuthven aim a dagger at James, and
then hold parley ? '

Because he wanted to frighten the King into
being ' at his will.'

' How could Euthven trust the King, with the
armed man alone in the turret ? '

What else could he do ? He locked them in, and
was, through the failure of the man, in a quandary
which made clear reflection necessary — and impossible.

' It was strange that the man had not been

trained in his task.'

If Oliphant is correctly reported, he had been
trained, but fi fainted.'

6 Why bind the King with a garter ? '

In helpless pursuit of the forlorn idea of captur-
ing him.

' Why execute the enterprise when the courtiers
were passing the window ? '

Euthven could not have known that they were
coming at that moment ; it was Gowrie's ill-timed
falsehoods, to the effect that the King had ridden
away, which brought them there. Gowrie had not
allowed for Henderson's failure.

POPULAR CRITICISM OF THE DAY 113

' How could the King struggle successfully with
the stalwart Master ? '

He fought for his life, and Euthven probably
even then did not wish to injure him bodily.

' Why was not the Master made prisoner ? '

James answered this question when ' posed ' by
Mr. Bruce. His blood was up, and he said 'Strike!'

' The Earl likewise might, after he was stricken,
have been preserved alive.'

Perhaps — by miracle ; he died instantly.

The discrepancies as to the dagger and the
opening of the window we have already treated, also
the locking and unlocking, or leaving unlocked, of
the chamber door, giving on the dark staircase, after
Euthven's last hurried entrance (p. 69).

There follow arguments, to be later considered,
about the relations between James and the Earl
previous to the tragedy, and a statement, with no
authority cited, that James had written to Gowrie's
uncle, to meet him at Perth on August 5, implying
that James had made up his mind to be there, and
did not go on Euthven's sudden invitation.

' The Earl and Cranstoun were alone with the
four in the fatal chamber. The others who were
wounded there went up after Gowrie's death.'

It may be so, but the bulk of the evidence is on
the other side.

'It is reported' that Henderson was eating an
egg in the kitchen, and went into the town when the
fray arose.

114 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

It is also denied, on oath, by Gowrie's cook, who
added that he was ' content to be hanged,' if it could
be proved.1

The Euthven apologist (MS.) says that Henderson
was waiting on the Lords who dined in the hall, and
was there when the King's servant brought the news
that the King had ridden away.

' The Master's sword, after his death, was found
rusted tight in his scabbard.'

The Master must have been a very untidy gallant.
No authority is cited for the story.

The Hurrays (who were well rewarded) were in
Perth, ' whether of set purpose let the reader
judge.'

By all means let the reader judge.

The King knew Henderson (so the anonymous
Goodman of Pitmillie said), but did not recognise the
man in the turret. It was reported that Patrick
Galloway, the king's chaplain, induced Henderson to
pretend to be the man in the turret.

As to the good man of Pitmillie, Calderwood did
not even know his name. This is mere gossip.

A^ain, Calderwood, who offers these criticisms,

~ ' 7

does not ask why, of all concerned, Henderson was
the only man that fled who 'had not been seen in
connection with the fray and the tumult. If he was
not the man of the turret, and if Andrew Euthven.
who also had ridden to Falkland, did not abscond,
why did Henderson ?

1 Pitcairn, ii. 196.

POPULAR CRITICISM OF THE DAY 115

As to the man in the turret, if not a retainer of
Euthven, he was a minion of James, or there was no
man at all. If there was no man at all, could James
be so absurd as to invent him, on the off chance that
somebody, anybody, would turn up, and claim to
have been the man ? That is, frankly, incredible.
But if James managed to insert a man into the turret,
he was not so silly as not to have his man ready to
produce in evidence. Yet Henderson could not be
produced, he had fled, and certainly had not come in
by August 12, when he was proclaimed.

That James had introduced and suborned Hender-
son and that Henderson fled to give tone and colour
to his narrative, is not among the most probable of
conjectures. I do not find that this desperate hypo-
thesis was put forward at the time. It could not be,
for apologists averred (1) that Henderson was eating
an egg in the kitchen : (2) that he was waiting on the
gentlemen in the hall, at the moment when, by the
desperate hypothesis, he was, by some machination of
James, in the turret : (3) there is a third myth, a Perth
tradition, that Henderson had been at Scone all day,
and first heard the tragic news, when all was over,
as, on his return, he crossed the bridge over Tay.
As it is incredible that there was no man in the
turret at all, and that James took the outside chance
that somebody, anybody, would claim to be the man ;
the assailants of the King must offer a working
hypothesis of this important actor in the drama.
My own fancy can suggest none. Was he in four

i 2

116 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

places at once, in the kitchen, in the hall, on the
bridge, and in the turret ? If he was in the kitchen,
in the hall, or on the bridge, why did he instantly
abscond ? If James put him in the turret, why did
he fly ?

The King's word, I repeat, was the word that no
man could rely on. But, among competing improba-
bilities, the story which was written on the night of
August 5, and to which he adhered under Bruce's
cross-examination, is infinitely the least improbable.
The Master of Gray, an abominable character, not
in Scotland when the events occurred, reported, not
from Scotland, that Lennox had said that, if put on
his oath, ' he could not say whether the practice
proceeded from Gowrie or the King.' (Sept. 30,
1600.)

The Master of Gray wrote from Chillingham, on
the English side of the Border, where he was playing
the spy for Cecil. Often he played the double spy,
for England and for Rome. Lennox may well have
been puzzled, he may have said so, but the report
rests on the evidence of one who did not hear
his words, who wished to flatter the scepticism of
James's English enemies, and whose character
(though on one point he is unjustly accused) reeks
with infamy.

That of James does not precisely ' smell sweet
and blossom in the dust.' But if the question arises,
whether a man of James's position, age, and tempera-
ment, or whether a young man, with the antecedents

POPULAK CEITICISM OF THE DAY 117

which we are about to describe, was the more likely
to embark on a complicated and dangerous plot — in
James's case involving two murders at inestimable
personal risk — it is not unnatural to think that the
young man is the more likely to ' have the wyte of
it.'

118 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

XI
THE KING AND THE RUTH YENS

HAVING criticised the contemporary criticism of the
Gowrie affair, we must look back, and examine the
nature of Gowrie's ancestral and personal rela-
tions with James before the day of calamity. There
were grounds enough for hatred between the King

c c* *—'

and the Earl, whether such hatred existed or not, in
a kind of hereditary feud, and in political differences.
As against James's grandmother, Mary of Guise,
the grandfather of Gowrie, Lord Euthven, had early
joined the Eeformers, who opposed her in arms.
Later, in 1566, it was Gowrie's grandfather who took
the leading part in the murder of Eiccio. He fled
to England, and there died soon after his exploit,
beholding, it was said, a vision of angels. His son,
Gowrie's father (also one of the Eiccio murderers),
when Mary was imprisoned in Loch Leven (June 1567)
was in charge of her, but was removed, ' as he began
to show great favour to her, and gave her intelli-
gence.' x Mary herself, through the narrative of ISTau,
her secretary, declares that Euthven (then a married

1 Bain, Calendar, ii. 350 ; Nau, p. 59.

THE KING AND THE RUTHVENS 119

man) persecuted her by his lust. He aided Lindsay
in extorting her abdication at Loch Leven. Such
was his record as regards Mary : James too had little

O i/

reason to love him.

The early reign of James in Scotland was a series
of Court revolutions, all of the same sort. James was
always either, unwillingly, under nobles who were
allies of Elizabeth, and who used the Kirk as their
instrument, or under vicious favourites who delivered
him from these influences. When Morton fell in
1581, the King was under D'Aubigny (Lennox), a
false Protestant and secret Catholic intriguer, and
Arran (Captain James Stewart), a free lance, and, in
religion, an Indifferent. Lennox entangled James in

o O

relations with the Guises and Catholic Powers ; Gowrie,
and the Protestant nobles, being threatened by Arran
and Lennox, captured James, in an insulting manner,
at Gowrie's castle of Euthven. He came as a guest,
for hunting; he remained a prisoner. (1582.) The
Kirk approved and triumphed : James waited and
dissembled, while Gowrie was at the head of the
Government. In June 1583, James, by a sudden
flight to St. Andrews Castle, where his friends sur-
rounded him, shook himself free of Gowrie, who,
however, secured a pardon for his share in James's
capture, in the ' Eaid of Euthven 'of 1582. Lennox
being dead, the masterful and unscrupulous Arran
now again ruled the King, and a new Lennox came
from France, the Duke of Lennox who was present
at the tragedy of August 5, 1600.

120 THE COWRIE MYSTERY

The Lords who had lost power by James's escape
to St. Andrews now conspired anew. Angus, Mar, and
others were to march on Stirling, Gowrie was waiting
at Dundee. (April 1584) Arran knew of the plot, and
sent Colonel Stewart to arrest Gowrie. After holding
his house against Stewart's men, the Earl was taken
and carried to Edinburgh. The other Lords, his allies,
failed and fled. Gowrie was brought to trial. He
had a pardon for the Eaid of Euthven, he had done
nothing ostensible in the recent rising, which followed
his capture at Dundee. Nevertheless he was tried,
condemned, executed, and forfeited. There exists a
manuscript of the date, which, at least, shows what
Gowrie's friends thought of the method by which his
conviction was procured. Arran and Sir Eobert
Melville, it is said, visited him in prison, and advised
him to make his peace with James. How was that
to be done ? Gowrie entreated for the kind offices of
Melville and Arran. They advised him to write to
the King confessing that he had been in several
conspiracies against his person which he could
reveal in a private interview. ' I should confess an
untruth,' said Gowrie, ' and frame my own indict-
ment.'

The letter, the others urged, being general, would
move the King's curiosity : he would grant an in-
terview, at which Gowrie might say that the letter
was only an expedient to procure a chance of stating
his own case.

Gowrie, naturally, rejected so perilous a practice.

THE KING AND THE RUTHVENS 121

4 You must confess the foreknowledge of these
things,' said Arran, ' or you must die.'

Gowrie replied that, if assured of his life, he
would take the advice, Arran gave his word of
honour that Gowrie should be safe. He wrote the
letter, he received no answer, but was sent to
Stirling. He was tried, nothing was proved against
him, and Arran produced his letter before the
Court. Gowrie was called, confessed to his hand-
writing, and told the tale of Arran's treachery,
which he repeated to the people from the scaffold.

This is, brieity, the statement of a newsletter
to England, written, as usual, against the Govern-
ment, and in the Protestant interest.1 A manuscript
in the British Museum gives a somewhat different
version.2 One charge against Gowrie, we learn, was
that of treasonable intercommuning with Hume of
Godscroft, an envoy of the Earl of Angus, who, before
Gowrie's arrest, was arranging a conspiracy. This
charge was perfectly true. Godscroft, in his History
of the Douglases (ii. 317-318), describes the circum-
stances, and mentions the very gallery whose door
resisted Lennox and Mar on August 5, 1600. Gods-
croft rode from the Earl of Angus to Gowrie in
his house at Perth. fc Looking very pitifully upon
his gallery, where we were walking at that time,
which he had but newly built and decored with

1 Form of certain Devices^ &c. See Papers relating to William,
Earl of Gowrie, London, 1867, pp. 25-29.

2 Form of examination and death of William, Earl of Gowrie.
British Museum, Caligula, c. viii. fol. 23.

122 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

pictures, he brake out into these words, having first
fetched a deep sigh. u Cousin" says he, " is there no
remedy? Et impius haec tarn culta novalia mites
habebit ? Barbarus has segetes ? ' Whereupon Gods-
croft was persuaded of his sincerity, and at his
return persuaded the Earl of Angus thereof also.'
So the plot went on, Gowrie pretending that he
meant to leave the country, says his accomplice,
Godscroft, while both the Court and the conspirators
were uncertain as to his trimming intentions. He
trimmed too long ; he was taken, the plot exploded
and failed. Gowrie was thus within the danger of
the law, for treasonablv concealing foreknowledge of

*/ <-^

the conspiracy.

According to the British Museum MS., Gowrie
now told the jury that he was being accused on the
strength of his own letter, treacherously extorted
under promise of life, by Montrose, Doune, Maitland,
Melville, Colonel Stewart, and the Captain of Dumbar-
ton, not by Arran. In Gowrie's letter of confession,
to the King, as printed by Spottiswoode, he does not
mention Godscroft, but another intriguer, Erskine.
However, in this letter he certainly confesses his
concern with the conspiracy. But, says the MS., the
nobles charged by Gowrie with having betrayed him
under promise of life denied the accusations on oath.
Gowrie himself, according to another copy of the
MS., denied knowing Hume of Godscroft ; if he did,
he spoke untruly, teste Godscroft.

However matters really stood, the Earl's friends.

THE KING AND THE BUTHVENS 123

at all events, believed that he had been most cruelly
and shamefully betrayed to the death, and, as the
King was now eighteen, they would not hold him
guiltless.

These were not the only wrongs of the Euthvens.
While the power of Arran lasted (and it was, on the
whole, welcome to James, though he had moments
of revolt), the family of Euthven was persecuted.
The widow of Gowrie was a daughter (see Appen-
dix A) of Henry Stewart, Lord Methven, who, as a
young man, had married Margaret, sister of Henry
VIII, widow of James IV, and divorced from
the Earl of Angus. As this lady, our Gowrie's
mother, knelt to implore the pity of James in the
street after her Lord's death, Arran pushed her
aside, and threw her down. He received the Earl's
forfeited estate and castle of Dirleton, near North
Berwick.

In October 1585, Arran fell, in his turn ; Angus,
Mar, and others drove him into retirement. James
acquiesced ; his relations with the house of Mar
remained most friendly. The house of Euthven
was now restored to its lands and dignities, in 1586,
the new Earl being James, who died in early youth.
He was succeeded by his brother, the Gowrie of our
tragedy, who was born about 1577. He had many
sisters ; the eldest, Mary, married the Earl of Atholl,
a Stewart, in January 1580. Lady Gowrie was
thus mother-in-law of the Earl of Atholl, who died
at Gowrie House in August 1594. Her grand-

124 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

daughter, Dorothea (daughter of Atholl and Mary
Euthven, sister of our Gowrie), in 1604 married
that younw Tullibardine who was in Perth at the

«/ o

tragedy of August 5, 1600. Lady Atholl is said to
have opposed the marriage. Another sister of
Gowrie, Sophia, married (before 1600, she was
dead by that time) the Duke of Lennox who was
at the slaughter of the Euthvens. Another sister,
Beatrix, was Maid of Honour to James's Queen,
and later married Hume of Cowdenknowes ; hence
come the Earls of Home. Gowrie had two younger
brothers, Patrick and William, who fled to England
from his castle of Dirleton, the day after the tragedy,
and were forfeited and persecuted by James ; Patrick
was long imprisoned in the Tower.

The new Earl, John, the victim of 1600, does not
come into public notice till 1592, when he was
elected Provost of Perth. He went to Edinburgh
University ; his governor was the respected Mr. Eol-
lock. Here a curious fact occurs. On August 12,
1593, young Gowrie read his thesis for his Master's
degree. Three weeks earlier, on July 24, the wild
Francis Stewart, Earl of Bothwell, had captured, in
Holyrood, his King, who was half dressed and un-
trussed. James at the time was suspected of
favouring the Catholic Earls of the North, Huntly,
Errol, and a new unpresbyterian Angus. The King
was on ill terms with the Kirk ; England had secretly
abetted Bothwell ; the clan of Stewart, including
Lennox, lent aid and countenance, but BothweWs

THE KING AND THE RUTH YENS 125

success was due to Gowrie s mother, the widow of
the decapitated Earl, and to his sister, Lady Atholl.
Bothwell entered Lady Gowrie's house, adjoining the
palace, spent the night there, stole into Holyrood by
a passage-way left open by Lady Atholl, and ap-
peared before the King, sword in hand, when his
Majesty was half dressed. Meanwhile our Gowrie,
reading for his thesis, may not have been unin-
terested in the plot of his mother and sister. This
was, in a way, the second successful Euthven plot to
seize the King ; the first was the Eaid of Euthven.
The new success was not enduring. James shook off
Bothwell in September 1593, and. in October,
Gowrie's brother-in-law Atholl, with our Gowrie him-
self, entered into alliance with Bothwell against King
James, and offered their services to Queen Eliza-
beth.

James moved out against Atholl, Gowrie, and
the Master of Montrose, who were at Castle Doune,
intending to join hands with Bothwell, and seize the
King. But Bothwell found the plan impracticable :
Atholl fled ; Gowrie and the Master of Montrose
were pursued and taken. No harm was done to
them : their excuses were accepted, but young
Gowrie and Atholl continued to conspire. In April,
1594, Atholl, signing for himself and Gowrie, and
Bothwell, signing for his associates, wrote a mani-
festo to the Kirk. They were in arms, they said, for
Protestant purposes, and wished commissioners from
among the preachers to attend them, and watch their

126 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

proceedings.1 Bothwell then took action, he made a
demonstration in arms against Edinburgh, but the
forces of Atholl and Gowrie did not arrive and Both-
well retreated. Atholl was threatened for this affair,
but pardoned by the King, and died in August.

In the same month Gowrie informed the Town
Council of Perth that he was going to study abroad.
They retained him in the position of Provost. He
went, with his tutor, Mr. Ehynd, to Padua, an
university where Protestantism was protected by the
toleration of the Republic of Venice, and where there
was an Anglo-Scottish ' Nation ' among the students.
In ' The Return from Parnassus,' a satirical play of
1601, we find Gullio, the admirer of Shakespeare,
professing to have studied at Padua. Gowrie is
said to have been elected Rector, but I cannot
find his name in the lists. He does appear in the
roll of Scottish scholars, some of them charac-
terised (unlike the English scholars) by personal
marks. Most have scars on the face or hand ; Archi-
bald Douglas has a scar on the brow from left to
right. James Lindsay, of Gowrie's year (1596-1597),
has also a scar on his brow. Next him is Andrew
Keith, with a scar on his right hand, and then
Dominus loannes Ruthuen, Scotus, cum signo albo in
mento, ' with a white mark on his chin.' Then we
have his luckless tutor, Mr. Ehynd, who was tortured,
Scotus cum ledigine super facie. Robert Ker of
Newbattle (' Kerrus de Heubattel ') is another of

1 Thorpe, Calendar^ ii. 650

THE KING AND THE RUTH YENS 127

Gowrie's college companions. All were students of
law. Magic was not compulsory at Padua, though
Gowrie was said to have studied that art.1

Concerning Gowrie's behaviour at Padua but a

< — '

single circumstance is known. Probably through one
of his fellow-students, Douglas, Ker, Keith, Lindsay
or another, the report reached Scotland that the
young Earl had left in Padua ' a strange relique,' an
emblematic figure emblazoned ; and had made, on the
subject, a singular remark. The emblematic figure
represented ' a blackamoor reaching at a crown with
a sword, in a stretched posture : ' the remark of
Gowrie, ' the Earl's own mot] was to the effect that
the emblem displayed, in umbra, or foreshadowed,
what was to be done in facto. This emblem was
secured at Padua, in 1609, by Sir Eobert Douglas,
who had heard of it in Scotland, and it was sent to
King James.2

If such ideas were in Gowrie's mind, he showed
no signs of them in an early correspondence with the
King. In 1595, James wrote ' a most loving letter ' to
Gowrie ; the Earl replied in a tone of gratitude. At
the same time Gowrie wrote to a preacher in Perth,
extolling the conduct of an English fanatic, who had
thrown down and trampled on the Host, at Eome.
He hoped, he said, when he returned to Scotland, ' to

1 De Natione Anglica et Scota Juristarum Universitatis Pata-
vinae lo. Aloys. Andrich. Patavii, 1892, pp. 172, 173.

2 Ottavio Baldi to the King, June 22, 1609. Record Office. Venice,
No. 14, 1608-1610. See infra, Appendix A, ' Gowrie's Arms and
Ambitions.'

128 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

amend whatever is amiss for lack of my presence.' l
Nevertheless, on December 25, 1598, Nicholson
informed Cecil that Gowrie had been converted to
Catholicism.2 In the Venice despatches and Vatican
transcripts I find no corroboration. Gowrie ap-
pears to have visited Borne ; the Euthven apologist
declares that he was there ' in danger for his religion '

o o

Galloway, on August 11, 1600, in presence of the King
and the people of Edinburgh, vowed that Gowrie,
since his return from Italy, had laboured to make
James ' revolt from Eeligion, at least in inward
sincerity, to entertain purpose with the Pope, and he
himself promised to furnish intelligence.'

If so, Gowrie was, indeed, ' a deep dissimulate
hypocrite.'

Galloway's informant must have been the King.
If Gowrie did or said anything to colour the story, it
may have been for the purpose of discovering, by
pretending to approve of them, these intrigues with
Eome, of which James was constantly being accused.

A new complexity is added here, by a list of
Scottish Catholic nobles, ready to join an invading

1 Gowrie's letters of 1595 are in Pitcairn.

8 State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. Ixiii, No. 85.

G. Nicolson to Sir Robert Cecil.

Edinborough, 25 December, 1598.

• •••••••

' I heare Gowry is become a papist. But the K. takes little care to
this, And yet sure it importes him most to se to it, vnlest he accompt
otherwais of it than he hath cause, except he haue other pollicy than I
will conjecture.' Compare Galloway's sermon, in Pitcairn, ii. 249, and
A Short Discourse, ii. 231, 232.

THE KING AND THE EUTHVENS 129

Spanish force, which the Earl of Bothwell handed in
to Philip III. of Spain, at a date not absolutely
certain. At a time conjectured at by Major Hume,
as 1600, Bothwell laid before the Spanish ministry
a scheme for an invasion of Scotland. He made
another more elaborate proposal at a date which, to
all seeming, was July 1601. In the appended list
of Scottish Catholic nobles appear the names of the
Earl of Gowrie, and of ' Baron Eastellerse,' that is,
Logan of Eestalrig. But, in 1601, there was no Earl
of Gowrie ; the title was extinct, the lands were
forfeited, and Gowrie's natural heir, William Euthven,
his brother, was a poor student at Cambridge. Could
Bothwell refer to him, who was no Catholic ? Can
he have handed in (in 1601) an earlier list of 1600,
without deleting the name of the dead Gowrie ? As
to Gowrie's real creed, Bothwell must have known
the truth, through Home, a reluctant convert to
Presbyterianism, who went from Paris to Brussels to
meet Bothwell, leaving Gowrie in Paris, just before
Home and Gowrie openly, and, as it was said, Both-
well secretly, returned to Scotland in April 1600.
Was the Gowrie conspiracy a Bothwellian plot ? l

We know little more about Gowrie, after his
letters of 1595, till, on August 18, 1599, Colville
reports to Cecil that the party of the Kirk (who were
now without a leader among the greater nobles)
intend to summon home the Earl.2 He is said to have

1 Simancas, iv. pp. 653, 654, 677, 680, 715.

2 Compare note, p. 110, supra.

130 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

stayed for three months at Geneva with Beza, the
famous reformer, who was devoted to him. He was
in Paris, in February and March 1600. The English
ambassador, Neville, recommended Gowrie to Cecil,
as ' a man of whom there may be exceeding good use
made.' Elizabeth and Cecil were then on the worst
terms with James. At Paris, Gowrie would meet
Lord Home, who, as we have said and shall prove in
a later connection, had an interview with the exiled
Bothwell, still wandering, plotting and threatening
descents on Scotland (p. 206).

On April 3, Gowrie was in London.1 He was very
well received; 'a cabinet of plate,' it is said, was
oiven to him by Elizabeth ; what else passed we do
not know. In Mav Gowrie returned to Scotland, and

rode into Edinburgh among a cavalcade of his friends.
According to Sir John Carey, writing to Cecil, from
Berwick, on May 29, James displayed jealous}^ of
Gowrie, ' giving him many jests and pretty taunts,' on
his reception by Elizabeth, and ' marvelling that the
ministers met him not.' 2 Calderwood adds a rumour
that James, talking of Gowrie's entry to Edinburgh,
said, ' there were more with his father when he went
to the scaffold.' Again, as the Earl leaned on the
King's chair at breakfast, James talked of dogs and
hawks, and made an allusion to the death of Eiccio,
in which Gowrie's father and grandfather took part.
These are rumours ; it is certain that the King

1 Winwood Memorials, pp. 1, 156. Hudson to Cecil. State Papers,
Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. Ixvi. No. 19.

3 Border Calendar, vol. ii. May 29, 1600. Carey to Cecil.

THE KING AND THE RUTHVENS 131

(June 20) gave Gowrie a year's respite from pursuit
of his creditors, to whom he was in debt for moneys
owed to him by the Crown, expenditure by the late
Earl of Gowrie when in power (15 S3).1 It is also
certain that Gowrie opposed the King's demands for
money, in a convention of June 21. 2 But so did
Lord President Fyvie, who never ceased to be James's
trusted minister, and later, Chancellor, under the
title of Earl of Dunfermline. Calderwood reports
that, after Gowrie's speech, Sir David Murray said,
' Yonder is an unhappy man ; they are but seeking
occasion of his death, which now he has given.'
This is absurd : Fyvie and the Laird of Easter Wemyss
opposed the King as stoutly, and no harm followed
to them ; Fyvie rising steadily (and he had opposed
the King yet more sturdily before) to the highest
official position.

Calderwood adds a silly tale of Dr. Herries.
Beatrix Euthven laughed at his lame leg ; he looked
in her palm, and predicted a great disaster. The same
anecdote, with, of course, another subject, is told of
Gowrie's own prediction that a certain man would come
to be hanged, which was fulfilled. Gowrie had been at
Perth, before the convention at Holyrood of June 21.
To Perth he returned ; thence, some time in July
(about the 20th),3 he went to his castle of Strabran,

1 The whole proceedings are printed in Arnot's Criminal Trials.

2 Nicholson to Cecil, June 22, June 29, 1600. Tytler, vol. ix. pp.
325, 326, 1843.

3 This date I infer from Cranstoun's statement. On August 5 he
had scarcely seen the Ruthvens, to speak to, for a fortnight.

132 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

in Atholl, to hunt. Whether his brother the Master
remained with him continuously till the Earl's return
to Perth on Saturday, August 2, I know not how to
ascertain. If there is anything genuine in the plot-
letters produced eight years later, the Master once or
twice visited Edinburgh in July, but that may have
been before going to Strabran.

Concerning the Master, a romantic story of
unknown source, but certainly never alluded to in
the surviving gossip of the day, was published, late
in the eighteenth century, by Lord Hailes. ' A re-
port is handed down that Lord Gowrie's brother
received from the Queen a ribbon which she had
got from the King, that Mr. Alexander went into
the King's garden at Falkland on a sultry hot day,
and lay down in a shade, and fell asleep. His
breast being open, the King passed that way and
discovered part of the ribbon about his neck below
his cravat, upon which he made quick haste into
the palace, which was observed by one of the
Queen's ladies who passed the same way. She in-
stantly took the ribbon from his neck, went a near
way to the Queen's closet, where she found her
Majesty at her toilet, whom she requested to lay
the ribbon in a drawer.' James entered, and asked
to be shown the ribbon. The Queen produced it,
and James retired, muttering, 'Devil tak' me, but
like is an ill mark.'

Legend does not say when, or in what year this
occurred. But the fancy of authors has identified

THE KING AND THE EUTHVENS 133

the Queen's lady with Beatrix Euthven, and has
added that the Master, in disgrace (though unde-
tected), retired with Gowrie to Strabane, or Strabran.
History has no concern with such fables. It is
certain, however, or at least contemporary letters
aver, that Queen Anne of Denmark was grieved
and angered by the slaying of the Gowries. On
October 21, 1600, Carey, writing to Cecil from
Woodrington, mentions this, and the tattle to the
effect that, as the Queen is about to have a child
(Charles I.), ' she shall be kept as prisoner ever
after.' Was the Master supposed to be father of
the Queen's child ? Carey goes on, c There is a letter
found with a bracelet in it, sent from the Queen
to the Earl of Gowrie, to persuade him to leave his
country life and come to Court, assuring him that
he should enjoy any contents that Court could
afford.' l Can some amorous promise underlie this,
as in the case of Mr. Pickwick's letter to Mrs.
Bardell, about the warming-pan ? ' This letter the
King hath,' says Carey. Was it with Gowrie, not
the Master, that the Queen was in love ? She was
very fond of Beatrix Euthven, and would disbelieve
in the guilt of her brothers ; hence these tears and

that anger of the Queen.

But James also, says Calderwood, was as anxious
as Carey declares that the Queen was, to bring
Gowrie to Falkland. ' When the Earl was in Stra-
bran, fifteen days before the fact, the King wrote

1 Border Calendar, vol. ii. p. 698, Oct. 21, 1600. Carey to Cecil.

134 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

sundry letters to the Earl, desiring him to come and
hunt with him in the wood of Falkland ; which
letters were found in my Lord's pocket, at his death,
as is reported, but were destroyed.'

So James was not jealous ; both he and the Queen
were inviting Gowrie to their country house, the
Queen adding the gift of a bracelet. She may have
worked it herself, like the bracelet which Queen
Mary is said to have sent to Bothwell.

All this is the idlest gossip. But it is certain
that, on one occasion, at the end of July, c close
letters ' were sent from the Court at Edinburgh to
Atholl and Gowrie ; and, later, to Inchaffray and
the Master, the first three are in Bothwell's list of
Catholics ready to meet the Spanish invaders. The
fact of the letters appears from the Treasurer's
accounts, where the money paid to the boy who
carried the letters is recorded, without dates of the
days of the month. The boy got 33 shillings, Scots,
for the journey from Edinburgh to the Earls of
Gowrie and Atholl ; 24 for the other two, which he
carried from Falkland. Craigengelt, in his deposition,
' denies that during my Lord's being in Strabran,
neither yet in Perth, after his coming from Strabran,
he knew any man or page to come from Court to my
Lord, or that he commanded to give them any meat
or drink.' 2

1 Calderwood, vi. 71.

2 A defender of Gowrie, Mr. Barbe, has the following ' observes '
upon this point. It has been asserted by Calderwood that, ' while the
Earl was in Strathbraan, fifteen days before the fact ' (say July 20),

THE KING AND THE RUTHVENS 135

No conclusion as to James's guilt can be drawn,
either from the fact that he wrote to Atholl, Inch-
affray, the Master, and Gowrie at the end of July,
or from the circumstance that Craigengelt professed
to know nothing about any messenger. James might
write to ask the Earl to hunt, we cannot guess what
he had to say, at the same time, to Atholl or Inch-
affray or the Master. He may even have written
about the affair of the Abbey of Scone, if it is true
that the Master wished to ^et it from his brother.

We really cannot infer that, as the Euthvens would
not come and be killed, when invited, at Falkland,
James went to kill them at Perth. Even if he
summoned the Master for August o, intending to
make it appear that the Master had asked him to
come to Perth, the Master need not have arrived
before seven in the morning, when the King went
and hunted for four hours. What conceivable
reason had the Master, if innocent, for leaving Perth

* the King wrote sundry letters to the Earl, desiring him to come and
hunt with him in the wood of Falkland, which letters were found in
my lord's pocket, as is reported, but were destroyed.' Mr. Barbe then
proves that letters were sent to Gowrie and Atholl in the last days of
July. It is certain that a letter was sent to Gowrie about July 20,
possibly a sporting invitation, not that there was any harm in an
invitation to join a hunting party. James is next accused of 'trying
to stifle the rumour ' about this { letter,' by a direct denial. This
means that Craigengelt, Gowrie's caterer, was asked whether he knew
of any man or boy who came to Gowrie from Court, and said that he
did not, a negative reply supposed to have been elicited by the torture
to which Craigengelt was certainly subjected. We only know that at
the end of July letters were sent to Gowrie, to Inchafiray, to Atholl,
and to Euthven. Whether his reached Gowrie or not, and what it
contained, we cannot know.

136 THE COWRIE MYSTERY

at 4 A.M. and visiting his sovereign at seven in the
morning ?

As to the coining of the Gowries to Perth from
Strabran or Strabane before the tragedy, we only
know what Craigengelt stated. His language is not

lucid.

c Depones that, my Lords being in Strabrand,
Alexander Euthven ' (a kinsman) ' came from Dun-
keld to my Lord. And that upon Friday (August 1)
my Lord commanded Captain Euthven to ride,
and tell my Lady ' (Gowrie's mother), ' that he was
to come, and Captain Euthven met my Lord at
the ferry-boat, and rode back to Dunkeld with my
Lord, where he ' (Gowrie) ' having supped, returned
to his bed at Trochene, the deponer being in his
company.'

Where, at the end of July, was Lady Gowrie ?
Was she within a day's ride of her sons ? Was she
at Perth ? We know that she was at Dirleton. Castle,
near North Berwick, on August 6. Had she left the
neighbourhood of Perth between the 1st and 5th of

August ? Captain Euthven seems to have ridden to
Lady Gowrie, and back again to Dunkeld with
Gowrie. If so (and I can make no other sense of
it), she was in Perthshire on August 1, and went at
once to Dirleton. Did she keep out of the way of
the performances of August 5 ?

It is curious that no apologist for Gowrie, as far
as I have observed, makes any remark on this per-
plexing affair of ' my Lady.' We know that she had

THE KING AND THE KUTHVENS 137

once already set a successful trap for the King. He
had not punished her ; he took two of her daughters,
Barbara and Beatrix, into his household ; and re-
stored to Gowrie his inheritance of the lands of
Scone, which, as we know, had been held by his
father. He had written a loving letter to Gowrie at
Padua, after the young man had for many months
been conspiring against him with his most dangerous
enemy, the wild Earl of Bothwell.

On the morning of the fatal August 5, Gowrie
went to sermon. What else he did, we learn from
John Moncrieff, who was the Earl's cautioner, or
guarantee, for a large sum due by him to one Eobert
Jolly.1 He was also brother of Hew Moncrieff, who
fled after having been with Gowrie in arms, against
Herries, Eamsay, and Erskine. Both Moncrieffs, says
John, were puzzled when they found that the Master
had ridden from Perth so early in the morning.
Gowrie, says Moncrieff, did not attend the Town
Council meeting after church ; he excused himself
on account of private affairs. He also sent away
George Hay who was with him on business when
Henderson arrived from Falkland, saying that he had
other engagements. For the same reason, he, at first,
declined to do a piece of business with Moncrieff,
who dined with him and two other gentlemen. c He
made him to misknow all things,' that is affected to
take no notice, when Andrew Euthven came in, and
'rounded to him' (whispered to him) about the

1 Privy Council Register, vi. 194.

138 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

King's approach. Then the Master entered, and
Gowrie went out to meet the King.

The rest we know, as far as evidence exists.

We now have all the essential facts which rest on
fairly good evidence, and we ask, did the Euthvens
lay a plot for the King, or did the King weave a web
to catch the Euthvens ? Looking first at character
and probable motives, we dismiss the gossip about
the amorous Queen and the jealous King. The
tatlers did not know whether to select Gowrie or the
Master as the object of the Queen's passion, or
whether to allege that she had a polyandrous affec-
tion for both at once. The letters of the age hint at
no such amour till after the tragedy, when tales of
the liaison of Anne of Denmark with the elder or
younger Euthven, or both, arose as a myth to
account for the events. The Queen, no doubt, was
deeply grieved in a womanly way for the sake of her
two maidens, Beatrix and Barbara Euthven. Her
Majesty, also in a womanly way, had a running feud
with Mar and the whole house of Erskine. To Mar,
certainly one of the few men of honour as well as of
rank in Scotland, James had entrusted his son, Prince
Henry ; the care of the heir to the Crown was a kind
of hereditary charge of the Erskines. The Queen
had already, in her resentment at not having the
custody of her son, engaged in one dangerous plot
against Mar ; she made another quarrel on this point
at the time (1603) when the. King succeeded to the
crown of England. Now Mar was present at the

u ten

(

THE KING AND THE KUTHVENS 139

Gowrie tragedy, and his cousin, Sir Thomas Erskine,
took part in the deeds. Hating the Erskines, devoted
to the Euthven ladies, and always feebly in opposition
to her husband, the Queen, no doubt, paraded her
grief, her scepticism, and her resentment. This was
quite in keeping with her character, and this conduct
lent colour to the myth that she loved Gowrie, or the
Master, or both, par amours. The subject is good
for a ballad or a novel, but history has nothing to
make with the legend on which Mr. G. P. E. James
based a romance, and Mr. Pinkerton a theory.

Leaving fable for fact, what motives had James
for killing both the Euthvens ? He had dropped the
hereditary feud, and had taken no measures against
the young Earl to punish his conspiracies with Both-
well in 1593-1594. Of Gowrie, on his return to
Scotland in May, he may have entertained some
jealousy. The Earl had been for months in Paris,
caressed by the English ambassador, and probably, as
we have seen, in touch with the exiled and ceaselessly
conspiring Bothwell. In London the Earl had been
well received by Elizabeth, and by Lord Willoughby,
who, a year earlier, as Governor of Berwick, had
insulted James by kidnapping, close to Edinburgh,
an English gentleman, Ashfield, on a visit to the
King's Court. Guevara, a cousin of Lord Willoughby,
lured Ashfield into the coach of the English envoy
Bowes, and drove him to the frontier. Lord Wil-
loughby had a swift yacht lying off Leith, in case it
was thought better to abduct Ashfield by sea. This is

140 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

an example of English insolence to the Scottish King-
also of English kidnapping — and Lord Willoughby,
the manager, had made friends with Go wrie in England.

Thus James, who was then on the worst
terms, short of open war, with England, may have
suspected and disliked the Earl, who had once
already put himself at the service of Elizabeth, and
might do so again. In the April of 1600, rumours
of a conspiracy by Archibald Douglas, the infamous
traitor ; Douglas of Spot, one of Morton's brood, and
John Colville — who, with Bothwell and, later, inde-
pendently, had caught James, had tried to catch him,
and proposed to Essex to catch him again, — were
afloat. Colville was in Paris at the same time as
Gowrie ; Bothwell was reported to have come
secretly to Scotland in April or May, and this com-
bination of facts or rumours may have aroused the
King's mistrust. Again, the Kirk was restive ; the
preachers, in need of a leader, were said by Colville
to have summoned Gowrie home.1 Moreover there
were persons about James — for example, Colonel
Stewart — who had reason to dread the Earl's venge-
ance for his father. The Euthven Apologist mentions
this fact, and the predilection of the Kirk for Gowrie,
among the motives for destroying him.

Once more there are hints, very vague, that, in
1593, Bothwell aimed at changing the dynasty.2 The
fable that Gowrie was a maternal grandson of
Margaret Tudor, widow of James IV, by Henry Stewart,

1 Cf. p. 110, note. 2 Border Calendar, i. 491.

THE KING AND THE RUTHVENS 141

Lord Methven, her third husband, and that Gowrie
was thus a candidate for the succession to the English
throne, perhaps also for the hand of Arabella Stuart,
may conceivably have existed. (Compare Appendix
A.) Again, Gowrie had sided with the burgesses
and minor barons, as against the nobles, by refusing
a grant of money to James, in the convention of June
1600, and James owed money to Gowrie, as he did
to most people. But we have already seen that an
exemption had been granted to Gowrie for a year
from pursuit of creditors, as far, that is, as regarded
his fathers debts (SO,OOOZ. Scots), (June 20, 1600).
The College of Justice refused to grant any new legal
summonses of creditors against Gowrie, and sus-
pended all that were extant.

Mr. Barbe accuses the King of ' utter and un-
blushing disregard for common truth and common
honesty.' Be this as it may, the exemption granted
to Gowrie was not regarded by his father's creditors
as extending to his mother, after his dishonoured
death. On November 1, 1600, Lady Gowrie im-
plored Elphinstone, the Secretary, to bring her suit
for relief before the King. The security for these
debts was on her ' conjunct fee lands,' and creditors,
because, I suppose, the Gowrie estates were about
to be forfeited, pressed Lady Gowrie, who, of course,
had no exemption. We know nothing as to the
success of Lady Gowrie's petition, but we have
seen that her daughters married very well. I
presume that Gowrie, not his mother, had previously

142 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

paid interest on the debts, ' he had already paid many
sums of money.' James had already restored to
Gowrie the valuable lands of Scone.1

However, taking things as the King's adversaries
regard them, the cumulative effect of these several

grudges (and of the mystery of Gowrie's Catho-
licism) would urge James to lay his very subtle
plot. He would secretly call young Euthven to
Falkland by six in the morning of August 5, he
would make it appear that Euthven had invited him
to Perth, he would lure the youth to a turret,
managing to be locked in with him and an armed
man ; he would post Eamsay below the turret window,
and warn him to run up the dark staircase at the
King's cry of treason. By the locked door he would
exclude Lennox and Mar, while his minions would
first delay Gowrie's approach, by the narrow stairs,
and then permit him to enter with only one com-
panion, Cranstoun. He would cause a report of his
own departure to be circulated, exactly at the right
moment to bring Gowrie under the turret window,
and within reach of his cries. This plot requires
the minutest punctuality, everything must occur at
the right moment, and all would have been defeated
had Gowrie told the truth about the King's departure,
or even asked ' Where is the King's horse ? ' Or
Gowrie might have stood in the streets of Perth, and
summoned his burgesses in arms. The King and the
courtiers, with their dead man, would have been

1 Tragedy of Gowrie House, pp. 29, 31.

THE KING AND THE RUTH YENS 143

beleaguered, without provisions, in Gowrie's house.
Was James the man, on the strength of the grudges
which we have carefully enumerated, to risk himself,
unarmed, in this situation ? As to how he managed
to have the door locked, so as to exclude the majo-
rity of his suite, who can conjecture ? How, again,
did he induce Gowrie to aver, and that after making
inquiry, that he had ridden homewards ?

I cannot believe that any sane man or monarch,
from the motives specified, would or could have laid,
and that successfully, the plot attributed to the King.

Turning; to Gowrie, we find that his grudges

o 7 o o

against James may have been deep and many. If
revengeful, he had the treacherous method of his

father's conviction, and the insults to his mother, to
punish. For a boy of seventeen he had already
attempted a good deal, in 1593-1594. His mother
had set him an example of King-catching, and it
looks as if his mother had been near him in Perth,
while he was at Strabane. If ambitious, and devoted
to Elizabeth and England (as he had been), Gowrie
had motives for a new Eaid of Euthven, the unceas-
ing desire of the English Government. He might, if
successful, head a new administration resting on the
support of England and the Kirk. Such a change
was due in the natural course of things. Or, quite
the reverse, if a secret Catholic he might hand the
Kino; over to Bothwell.

Thus Gowrie may well have wished to revenge
his father ; his mother had once already helped to

144 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

betray James to an attack of the most insulting
nature ; lie himself was strong for the Kirk, over
which James was playing the despot ; 6>r, he desired
toleration for Catholics ; he had been well received
in England, where all such plots- -their name
was legion — had always been fostered ; he was
very young, and he risked everything. Only his
method was new — that of strict secrecy. He had

previously spoken to Mr. Cowper, minister 'of Perth,
in a general way, about the failure of plots for lack
of deep secrecy, and through the admission of too
many confederates. Cowper told this to Spottis-
woode, at Falkland. Mr. Ehynd, Gowrie's tutor,
told Cowper and the Comptroller, ' unrequired ' (not
under torture, nor in answer to a question under ex-
amination), that Gowrie, when abroad, several times
said that ' he was not a wise man that, having the
execution of a high and dangerous purpose, com-
municated the same to any but himself.'

As to this secrecy, we must remember that
Gowrie was very young ; that in Italy he may have
heard or read of romantic and crafty plots ; and may
long have dreamed (as Eobert Oliphant's reported
allegation declared) of some such scheme as that in
which he failed. We must remember, too, that
James's own account at least suggests a plan quite
feasible. To bring James to Gowrie House, early in
the day, when the townsmen were at kirk, to bring
him with only three or four attendants, then to iso-
late him and carry him off, was far from impossible ;

THE KING AND THE RUTHVENS 145

they might hurry him, disguised, to Dirleton, a castle
garrisoned and provisioned, according to Carey, who
reports the version of Gowrie's friends. A Scottish
judge, Gibson (the ancestor of Sir Thomas Gibson-
Carmichael), was later carried from Leith Sands
across the Border, with perfect success. A fault of
the plan was that, once undertaken, it could not be
dropped, even though James came late and well
attended. Euthven could not tell the King that his
story about a captive and a pot of gold was false. To
do that would have subjected him to a charge of
treason. He could have only one motive for thus
deceiving his Majesty. Thus the plot had to go on,
even under circumstances very unfavourable. There
was no place for repentance.

Thus considered, the conspiracy looks like the
plot of a romance, not without meritorious points, but
painfully amateurish.

As proof of Gowrie's guilt, the evidence, I think,
distinctly proves that he intentionally concealed from
those about him the ride of his brother, Henderson,
and Andrew Euthven to Perth ; that he concealed his
knowledge, derived from Henderson, of the King's
approach ; and that Euthven concealed from Craigen-
gelt, on his return, his long ride to Falkland, saying
that he had been on ' an errand not far off.' MoncriefF
swore that Henderson crave him a similar answer.

Asked by Moncrieff where he had been, he said ' he
had been two or three miles above the town.' Hender-
son corroborated Moncrieff' s evidence on this point.

146 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

There can have been no innocent motive for all this
secrecy. It would have been natural for Gowrie to
order luncheon for the King to be prepared, as soon
as Henderson arrived.

Finally, the Earl's assertions that James had ridden
away, assertions repeated after he had gone upstairs
to inquire and make sure, are absolutely incompatible
with innocence. They could have only one motive,
to induce the courtiers to ride off and leave the King
in his hands.

What was to happen next ? Who can guess at
the plot of such a plotter ? It is perhaps least impro-
bable that the King was to be conveyed secretly,
by sea or across Fife, to Dirleton in the first place.
Gowrie may have had an understanding with Guevara
at Berwick. James himself told Nicholson that a
large English ship had hovered off the coast, refusing
communication with the shore. Bothwell, again, now
desperate, may have lately been nearer home than
was known ; finally, Fastcastle, the isolated eyrie on
its perpendicular rock above the Northern Sea, may
have been at Gowrie's disposal. I am disinclined to
conjecture, being only certain that a young man with
Gowrie's past — ' Italianate,' and of dubious religion
-was more apt to form a wild and daring plot
than was his canny senior, the King of Scots. But
that a plot of some kind Gowrie had laid, I am con-
vinced by his secrecy, and by his falsehoods as to the
King's departure. Among the traps for the King
contrived by Bothwell and Colville, and reported by

THE KING AND THE RUTHVENS 147

Colville to his English paymasters, were schemes quite
as wild as that which Gowrie probably entertained.
The King once in the pious hands of so godly a man
as Gowrie, the party of the Kirk, or the party of the
Church, would have come in and made themselves
useful.1

1 As to Bothwell's whereabouts, in 1600, he left Brussels in March,
nominally to go to Spain, but, in June, the agent of the English
Government in the Low Countries was still anxious to hear that he
had arrived in Spain. When he actually arrived there is uncertain.
Compare Simancas, iv. p. 667, with State Papers, Domestic (Elizabeth)
(1598-1600), p. 245, No. 88, p. 413 (March 24, April 3, 1600), p. 434,
May 30, June 9, p. 509. Cecil meant to intrigue with Bothwell,
through Henry Locke, his old agent with Bothwell's party, Atholl,
and Gowrie October 1593). Compare infra, p. 160.

L 2

148 THE COWRIE MYSTERY

XII
LOGAN OF EESTALRIG

WE now arrive at an extraordinary sequel of the
Gowrie mystery : a sequel in which some critics
have seen final and documentary proof of the guilt
of the Euthvens. Others have remarked only a
squalid intrigue, whereby James's ministers threw
additional disgrace on their master. That they suc-
ceeded in disgracing themselves, we shall make only
too apparent, but if the evidence which they handled
proves nothing against the Euthvens, it does not on
that account invalidate the inferences which we have
drawn as to their conspiracy. We come to the story
of the Laird and the country writer.

That we may know the Laird better, a brief
description of his home may be introduced. Within
a mile and a half of the east end of Princes Street,
Edinburgh, lies, on the left of the railway to the south,
a squalid stfburb. You drive or walk on a dirty
road, north-eastwards, through unambitious shops,
factories, tall chimneys, flaming advertisements, and
houses for artisans. The road climbs a hill, and you
begin to find, on each side of you, walls of ancient
construction, and traces of great old doorways, now

LOGAN OF EESTALFJG 149

condemned. On the left are ploughed fields, and
even clumps of trees with blackened trunks. Grimy
are the stacks of corn in the farmyard to the left,
at the crest of the hill. On the right, a gateway
gives on a short avenue which leads to a substantial
modern house. Having reached this point in my
pilgrimage, I met a gentleman who occupies the
house, and asked if I might be permitted to view
the site. The other, with much courtesy, took me
up to the house, of which only the portion in view
from the road was modern. Facing the west all
was of the old Scottish chateau style, with gables,
narrow windows, and a strange bulky chimney on
the north, bulging out of the wall. The west side of
the house stood on the very brink of a steep preci-
pice, beneath which lay what is now but a large
deep waterhole, but, at the period of the Gowrie
conspiracy, was a loch fringed with water weeds, and
a haunt of wild fowl. By this loch, Eestalrig Loch,
the witch more than three centuries ago met the
ghost of Tarn Eeid, who fell in Pinkie fight, and by
the ghost was initiated into the magic which brought
her to the stake.

I scrambled over a low wall with a deep drop,
and descended the cliff so as to get a view of the
ancient chateau that faces the setting sun. Beyond
the loch was a muddy field, then rows on rows of
ugly advertisements, then lines of 'smoky dwarf
houses,' and, above these, clear against a sky of
March was the leonine profile of Arthur's Seat.

150 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

Steam rose and trailed from the shrieking south-
ward trains between the loch and the mountain, old
and new were oddly met, for the chateau was the
home of an ancient race, the Logans of Eestalrig,
ancestors of that last Laird with whom our story has
to do. Their rich lands stretched far and wide ;
their huge dovecot stands, sturdy as a little pyramid,
in a field to the north, towards the firth. They had
privileges over Leith Harbour which must have been
very valuable : they were of Eoyal descent, through
a marriage of a Logan with a daughter of Eobert II.
But their glory was in their ancestor, Sir Eobert
Logan, who fell where the good Lord James of
Douglas died, charging the Saracens on a field of
Spain, and following the heart of Bruce. So Barbour
sings, and to be named by Barbour, for a deed and a
death so chivalrous, is honour enough.

The Logans flourished in their eyrie above the
Loch of Eestalrig, and intermarried with the best
houses, Sinclairs, Ogilvys, Homes, and Eamsays of
Dalhousie. It may be that some of them sleep
under the muddy floor of St. Triduana's Chapel, in
the village of Eestalrig, at the foot of the hill on
the eastern side of their old chateau. This village,
surrounded by factories, is apparently just what it
used to be in the days of James VI. The low thick-
walled houses with fore-stairs, retain their ancient,
high-pitched, red-tiled roofs, with dormer windows,
and turn their tall narrow gables to the irregular street.
' A mile frae Embro town,' you find yourself going

Photo : W. J. Hay, Edinburgh

p. 150.

RESTALRIG HOUSE

Photo: W. J. Hay, Edinburgh

p. 150.

RESTALRIG VILLAGE

LOGAN OF RESTALRIG 151

back three hundred years in time. On the right hand
of the road, walking eastward, what looks like a huge
o-reen mound is visible above a hio-h ancient wall. This

O CJ

is all that is left of St. Triduana's Chapel, and she
was a saint who came from Achaia with St. Eegulus,
the mythical founder of St. Andrews. She died at
Eestalrig on October 8, 510, and may have converted
the Celts, who then dwelt in a crannog in the loch ; at
all events we hear that, in a very dry summer, the
timbers of a crannog were found in the sandy deposit
of the lake margin. The chapel (or chapter-house ?),
very dirty and disgracefully neglected, has probably a
crypt under it, and certainly possesses a beautiful
groined roof, springing from a single short pillar in
the centre. The windows are blocked up with stones,
the exterior is a mere mound of grass like a sepulchral
tumulus. On the floor lies, broken, the gravestone
of a Lady Eestalrig who died in 1526. Outside is a
patched-up church ; the General Assembly of 1560
decreed that the church should be destroyed as ' a
monument of idolatry ' (it was a collegiate church,
with a dean, and prebendaries), and in 1571 the
wrought stones were used to build a new gate inside
the Netherbow Port. The whole edifice was not
destroyed, but was patched up, in 1836, into a
Presbyterian place of worship. This old village and
kirk made up ' Eestalrig Town,' a place occupied
by the English during the siege of Leith in 1560.
So much of history may be found in this odd
corner, where the sexton of the kirk speaks to the

152 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

visitor about ' the Great Logan,' meaning that Laird

Cj O

who now comes into the sequel of the Gowrie
mystery.

For some thirty years before the date of which
we are speaking, a Eobert Logan had been laird
of Eestalrig, and of the estate of Flemington, in
Berwickshire, where his residence was the house of
Gunnisgreen, near Eyemouth, on the Berwickshire
coast. He must have been a young boy when, in
1560, the English forces besieging Leith (then held
by the French for Mary of Guise) pitched their
camp at Eestalrig.

In 1573, Kirkcaldy of Grange and Maitland of
Lethington gallantly held the last strength of the
captive Mary Stuart, the Castle of Edinburgh.
The fortress was to fall under the guns of the
English allies of that Earl of Gowrie (then Lord
Euthven), who was the father of the Gowrie of our
mystery.

On April 17, 1573, a compact was made between
Lord Euthven and Drury, the English general.
One provision was (the rest do not here concern us)
that Alexander, Lord Home ; Lethington ; and Eobert
Logan of Eestalrig, if captured, c shall be reserved to
be justified by the laws of Scotland,' which means,
hanged by the neck. But neither on that nor on any
other occasion was our Logan hanged.1 He some-
how escaped death and forfeiture, when Kirkcaldy
was gibbeted after the fall of the castle. In 1577,

1 Privy Council Register, ii. 217, 218.

LOGAN OF RESTALRIG 153

we find him, with Lord Lindsay and Mowbray of
Barnbogle (now Dalmeny) surety for Queen Mary's
half-brother, the Lord Eobert Stewart, who vainly
warned Darnley to escape from Kirk o' Field. Lord
Eobert was then confined by the Eegent Morton in
Linlithgow, and Logan with the rest was surety in
10,OOOZ. that -he would not attempt to escape. Later,
Logan was again surety that Lord Eobert would
return after visiting his dominions, the Orkney
Islands.1

Logan, though something of a pirate, was clearly
a man of substance and of a good house, which
he strengthened by alliances. One of his wives,
Elizabeth Macgill, was the daughter of the Laird of
Cranstoun Eiddell, and one of her family was a
member of the Privy Council. From Elizabeth
Logan was divorced ; she was, apparently, the mother
of his eldest son, Eobert. By the marriage of an
ancestor of Logan's with an heiress of the family of
Hume, he acquired the fortress and lands of Fast-
castle, near St. Abbs, on the Berwickshire coast.
The castle, now in ruins, is the model of Wolfscrag
in ' The Bride of Lammermoor.' Standing on the
actual verge of a perpendicular cliff above the sea,
whence it is said to have been approached by a stair-
case cut in the living rock, it was all but inaccessible,
and was strongly fortified. Though commanded by
the still higher cliff to the south, under which it
nestled on its narrow plateau of rock, Fastcastle was

1 Privy Council Register, ii. 622, 699.

154 THE GOW1IIE MYSTERY

then practically impregnable, and twenty men could
have held it against all Scotland. Around it was,
and is, a roadless waste of bent and dune, from
which it was severed by a narrow rib of rock jutting
seawards, the ridge being cut by a cavity which was
spanned by a drawbridge. Master of this inaccessible
eyrie, Logan was most serviceable to the plotters of
these troubled times.

His religion was doubtful, his phraseology could
glide into Presbyterian cant, but we know that he
indifferently lent the shelter of his fastness to the
Protestant firebrand, wild Frank Stewart, Earl of
Bothwell (who, like Carey writing from Berwick to
Cecil, reckons Logan among Catholics), or to George
Ker, the Catholic intriguer with Spain. Logan loved a
plot for its own sake, as well as for chances of booty
and promotion. He was a hard drinker, and associate
of rough yeomen and lairds like Ninian Chirnside of
Whitsumlaws (Bothwell's emissary to the wizard,
Ei chard Graham), yet a man of ancient family and
high connections. He seems to have been intimate
with the family of Sir John Cranstoun of Cranstoun.
On one occasion he informs Archibald Douglas, the
detested and infamous murderer and deeply dyed
traitor, that 'John of Cranstoun is the one man
now that bears you best good will.' (January
1587?)

In January 1600, the year of the Gowrie plot, we
find Sir John Cranstoun in trouble for harbouring
an outlawed Mr. Thomas Cranstoun, who was, with

LOGAN OF EESTALRIG 155

Douglas, the Laird of Spot, one of Bothwell's allies
in all his most desperate raids on the person of King
James. In 1592, Mr. Thomas Cranstoun was for-
feited, he was informed against for ' new conspiracies
against his Majesty's life and estate,' and, in January
1600, Sir John Cranstoun was sheltering this dan-
gerous and desperate Bothwellian outlaw, as was his
son-in law, Mr. William Cranstoun.1

Now the Mr. Thomas Cranstoun who was hanged
for his part in the Gowrie affair, was brother of Sir
John Cranstoun of Cranstoun, the ally of that other
Mr. Thomas Cranstoun who was so deep in Bothwell's
wild raids on the King's person. In the spring of
1600 (as we have said, but must here repeat)
there were reports that Bothwell had secretly
returned to Scotland, and, on April 20, 1600, just
before the date of Gowrie's arrival in Edinburgh
from London, Nicholson reports suspected plots of
Archibald Douglas, of John Colville, a ruined Both-
wellian, and a spy, and of the Laird of Spot.2 This
Colville had recently hinted to Essex that he could
do a serviceable enterprise. 'As for the service I
mean to do, if matters go to the worst, it shall be
such, God willing — if I lose not my life in doing
thereof — as no other can do with a million of gold,
and yet I shall not exceed the bonds of humanity,'
that is, he will not murder the King. ' But for con-
science sake and worldly honesty, I must first be

1 Privy Council Register, vi. 73, 74.

a State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. Ixvi. No. 13, No. 21.

150 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

absolved of my natural allegiance.' (April 27, 1598 ;
again, October 20, 1598. ):

The point for us to mark is that all these con-
spirators and violent men, Bothwell (in exile or
secretly in Scotland), Colville (in 1600 an exile in
Paris), the Laird of Spot, the Cranstouns, the in-
famous Archibald Douglas, with Eichard Douglas
his nephew, and Logan of Eestalrig, were united,
if not by real friendship, at least, as Thucydides
says, by ' partnership in desperate enterprises ' and by
1600 were active in a subterranean way. If it is fair
to say, nosdtur a sociis, ' a man is known by the
company he keeps,' Logan of Eestalrig bears the
mark of the secret conspirator. He had relations
with persons more distinguished than his Chirnsides
and Whittingham Douglases, though they were of
near kin to the Earl of Morton. His mother, a
daughter of Lord Gray, married Lord Home, after
the death of Logan's father. The Laird of Eestalrig
was thus a half-brother of the new Lord Home, a
Warden of the Border, and also was first cousin of
the beautiful, accomplished, and infamous Master of
Gray, the double spy of England and of Eome.

Logan, too, like the Master, had diplomatic ambi-
tions. In 1586 (July 29) we find him corresponding
with the infamous Archibald Douglas, one of Darn-
ley's murderers, whom James had sent, in the crisis
of his mother's fate, as his ambassador to Elizabeth.
In 1586, Logan, with two other Logans, was on the

1 Hatfield Calendar, viii. 147, 399.

LOGAN OF KESTALRIG 157

packed jury which acquitted Douglas of Darnley's
murder. Logan was a retainer of Bothwell, that
meteor-like adventurer and king-catcher, and he
asks Douglas to try to procure him employment
(of course as a spy) from Walsingham, the English
statesman.1

In October of the same year, we find the Master
of Gray writing to Douglas, thus : ' Of late I was
forced, at Eestalrig's suit, to pawn some of my plate,
and the best jewel I had, to get him money for his
marriage ' — his second marriage, apparently. By
December 1586 we find Logan riding to London, as
part of the suite of the Master of Gray, who was to
plead with Elizabeth for Mary's life. He was the
Master's most intimate confidant, and, as such, in
February-March 1587, proposed to sell all his
secrets to Walsingham ! Nevertheless, when Gray
was driven into exile, later in 1587, Logan was one
of his ' cautioners,' or sureties. He had been of the
party of Gowrie's father, during that nobleman's
brief tenure of power in 1582, 1583, and, when
Gowrie fell, Logan was ordered to hand his eyrie of
Fastcastle over, at six hours' notice, to the officers of
the King. Through the stormy years of Bothwell's
repeated raids on James (1592-1594) Logan had
been his partisan, and had been denounced a rebel.
Later he appears in trouble for highway robbery
committed by his retainers. Among the diversions of

1 For these letters of Logan's, see Hatfield Calendar^ vols. iii. iv.
under ' Kestalrig,' in the Index.

158 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

this country gentleman was flat burglary. In Decem-
ber 1593, ' when nichts are lang and mirk,' the
Laird helped himself to the plate-chest of William
Nesbit of Newton. c Under silence of night he took
spuilzie of certain gold and silver to the value of
three thousand merks Scots.' The executors of
Nesbit did not brino- their action till after Logan

o o

died, in July 1606, 'in respect the said clandestine
deed and fact came not to our knowledge, nor light
as to who had committed the same,' till just before
the action was brought.

In 1599, when conspiracies were in the air,
Logan was bound over not to put Fastcastle in the
hands of his Majesty's enemies and rebels.1

This brief sketch of a turbulent life is derived
from Logan's own letters to Archibald Douglas , now

o o

among the Cecil Papers at Hatfield ; from the 4 Papers
relating to the Master of Gray,' in which we find
Logan, under a cypher name, betraying the Master,
his cousin and ally, and from the Register of the
Privy Council of Scotland, in which all that dead
world, from the King to the crofter, may be traced,
often in circumstances peculiarly private.

At that time, civil processes of ' horning,' ' putting
to the horn,' or outlawry, were the common resort of
creditors against procrastinating debtors. Many of
the most respectable persons, gentlemen and ladies,
appear in these suits ; Eobert Abercromby sues a
lady of rank for 150/. Scots. He is the burgess of

1 Privy Council Register, vol. v., s. v. * Logan ' in the Index.

LOGAN OF KESTALRIG 159

Edinburgh, the King's saddler, who, as the Master
of Euthven told Craigengelt, had brought the King
from Falkland to Perth, ' to take order for his debt.'
JSFow the singular thing is that we never find
Logan of Eestalrig recorded as under ' horning ' for
debt, whereas, considering his character, we might
expect him never to be free from ' the horn.' On
the other hand, we know him to have been a lender,
not a borrower. He was suiprofusus. On January 1,
1599, Cecil had been making inquiries as to Logan,
from Lord Willoughby commanding at Berwick.
Cecil always had his eyes on Border Scots, likely to
be useful in troubling King James. Willoughby
replies, ' There is sutch a laird of Lesterigge as you
write of, a vain lose man, a greate favourer of
thefes reputed, yet a man of a good clan, as they
here tearme it, and a gud felow.' 1

Such was Logan of Eestalrig, ' Old Eugged and
Dangerous.' In 1601, May 30, we find him appearing
as surety for Philip Mowbray, one of the Mowbrays
of Barnbogle, whose sister stood by Queen Mary
at the scaffold, and whose brother Francis was with
the bold Buccleuch, when he swam ' that wan water '
of Esk, and rescued Kinmont Willie from Carlisle
Castle. This Francis Mowbray and his brother
Philip were (1601-1603) mixed up with Cecil in
some inscrutable spy-work, and intrigues for the
murder of King James. The Mowbrays were old

1 Border Calendar, vol. ii. Willoughby to Cecil, January 1,
159J.

160 THE GOWRIE MYSTEHY

friends of Logan : they had been engaged in priva-
teering enterprises together, but could produce no
letters of marque ! In 1603, Francis Mowbray,
abandoned and extradited by Cecil, was killed in
an attempt to escape from Edinburgh Castle. He
had been accused, by an Italian fencing-master, of
a conspiracy to kill James. Cecil had, of course,
by this time made peace and alliance with James,
who was on the point of ascending the English
throne, and he gave up Francis. Mowbray chal-
lenged the Italian fencing-master to judicial combat ;
the Italian came down to fight him, the lists were
actually pitched at Holyrood, when (January 31,
1603) Francis preferred to try the chance of flight;
the rope of knotted sheet to which he trusted
broke, and he was dashed to pieces on the Castle
rocks.1

Since 1592, Mowbray had been corresponding
with Logan's friend, Archibald Douglas, and offering
his services to Cecil. To Cecil, in September 1600,
he was again applying, regarding Elizabeth as his
debtor. In 1600, he was in touch with Henry Locke,
who had been Cecil's go-between in his darkest
intrigues against James, and his agent with Both-

o o o

well, Atholl, and the Gowrie slain on August 5,
1600. But, in the autumn of 1602, Cecil had be-
come the secret ally of James, and gave up poor
Francis, a broken tool of his and of Elizabeth's.2

1 Pitcairn, ii. 405-407.

2 See Thorpe's Calendar, vol. ii., s. v. ' Mowbray, Francis ' in the
Index.

LOGAN OF RESTALRIG 16]

We have now learned a good deal about Logan's
habitual associates, and we have merely glanced at
a few of the numberless plots against James which
were encouraged by the English Government. If
James was nervously apprehensive of treason, he
had good cause. But of Logan at the moment of the

o o

Gowrie Plot, we know nothing from public documents.
We do know, however, on evidence which has pre-
viously been in part unpublished, in part unobserved,
that from August 1600 onwards, Logan was oddly
excited and restless. Though not in debt — or at
least though no record of his ' horning' exists — he
took to selling his lands, Eestalrig, Flemington,
Gunnisgreen, Fastcastle.1 After 1600 he sold them
all ; he wallowed in drink ; he made his wife
wretched ; with his eldest son he was on ill terms ;
he wandered to London, and to France in 1605,
and he returned to die (of plague, it seems) in
the Canongate, a landless but a monied man, in
July 1606.

Why did Logan sell all his lands, investing in
shipping property ? The natural inference, at the
time, was that he had been engaged in ' some ill
turn,' some mysterious conspiracy, and people pro-
bably (certainly, if we believe the evidence to
follow) thought that he had been an accomplice
in the Gowrie affair.

He died, and his children by his first wives
dissociated themselves from his executorship. The

1 He had sold Nether Gogar in 1596.

162 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

bulk of it was the unpaid part of the purchase
money for his lands, sold by him to Balmerino,
and Dunbar, James's trusted ministers, who owed
some 33,000 marks to the estate.

Logan had a 'doer,' or law agent, a country
writer, or notary, named Sprot, who dwelt at Eye-
mouth, a hungry creature, who did not even own
a horse. When Logan rode to Edinburgh, Sprot
walked thither to join him. Yet the two were boon
companions ; Sprot was always loitering and watch-
ing at Gunnisgreen, always a guest at the great
Christmas festivals, given by the Laird to his rough
neighbours. The death of Logan was a disaster to
Sprot, and to all the parasites of the Laird.

Logan died, we saw, in July 1606. In April,
1608, Sprot was arrested by a legal official, named
Watty Doig. He had been blabbing in his cups, it is
said, about the Gowrie affair ; certainlv most com-

promising documents, apparently in Logan's hand,
and with his signature, were found on Sprot's person.
They still bear the worn softened look of papers
carried for long in the pockets.1 Sprot was ex-
amined, and confessed that he knew beforehand of
the Gowrie conspiracy, and that the documents in
his possession were written by Logan to Gowrie
and other plotters, He was tortured and in part
recanted ; Logan, he said, had not written the guilty
letters : he himself had forged them. This was all
before July 5, 1608, while Mr. Eobert Oliphant lay in

1 Some of the papers are in the General Register House, Edinburgh.

LOGAN OF RESTALRTG 163

prison, in London, on the same charge of guilty fore-
knowledge. Early in July 1608, the Earl of Dunbar
came from London to Edinburgh, to deal with the
affairs of the Kirk. He took Sprot out of his dun-
geon, gave him a more wholesome chamber, secluded
him from gentlemen who came and threatened him

<^j

(or so he said) if he made revelations, and Dunbar
provided him with medical attendance. The wounds
inflicted in ' the boot ' were healed.

For six weeks Sprot was frequently examined,
before members of the Privy Council and others,
without torture. What he said the public did not
know, nor, till now, have historians been better
informed. Throughout, after July 5, 1608, he per-
sisted in declaring Logan's complicity in the Gowrie
conspiracy, and his own foreknowledge. He was
tried, solely on the evidence of guilty foreknowledge
alleged in his own confessions, and of extracts, given
by him from memory only, of a letter from Gowrie to
Logan (not one of those which he claimed to have
forged), and another of Logan to Gowrie, both of
July 1600. On August 12, Sprot was hanged at Edin-
burgh. He repeated his confession of guilt from
every corner of the scaffold. He uttered a long re-
ligious speech of contrition. Once, he said, he had
been nearly drowned : but God preserved him for
this great day of confession and repentance. But no
unbeliever in the guilt of Gowrie, says Calderwood,
6 was one whit the more convinced.' Of course not,
nor wo aid the death of Henderson — which they

164 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

clamoured for — have convinced them. They said,,
falsely, that Sprot was really condemned as a forger,
and, having to die, took oath to his guilt in the
Gowrie conspiracy, in consideration of promises of
help to his wife and family.1

Nearly a year later, in June 1609, the exhumed
remains of Lo^an were brought into court (a regular

4— J ^-J \ CJ

practice in the case of dead traitors), and were tried
for treason. Five letters by Logan, of July 1600,
were now produced. Three were from Logan to
conspirators unnamed and unknown. One was to a
retainer and messenger of his, Laird Bower, who had
died in January 1606. These letters were declared,
by several honourable witnesses, to be in Logan's very
unusual handwriting and orthography : they were

1 The evidence for all that occurred to Sprot, between April and
July 1608, is that of a manuscript History of the Kirk of
Scotland, now in the Advocates' Library. It is written in an early
seventeenth-century hand. Calderwood follows it almost textually up
to a certain point where the author of the MS. history says that
Sprot, on the scaffold, declared that he had no promise of benefit to his
family. But Calderwood declares, or says that others declare, that
Sprot was really condemned as a forger (which is untrue), but con-
fessed to the Gowrie conspiracy in return for boons to his wife and
children.

We have, of course, no evidence that anything was done by
Government, or by any one, for Mrs. Sprot and the children. The
author of the MS., which Calderwood used as he pleased, avers that
Sprot denied on the scaffold the fact that he had any promise.
Neither draft nor official account confirms the MS. history on the
point of no promise. The official draft of his last moments (from
its interlineations, each signed by the Clerk of Council) appears to
have been drawn up on the spot, or hurriedly, as soon as Sprot was
dead. This is the aspect of the draft of the account ; the official
printed account says that there was 'no place of writing on the
scaffold, in respect of the press and multitude of people ' (Pitcairn, ii.
261).

LOGAN OF KESTALBIG 165

compared with many genuine letters of his, and no
difference was found. The Parliamentary Committee,
6 The Lords of the Articles,' previously sceptical,
were convinced by the five letters, the evidence to
handwriting, the energy of the Earl of Dunbar, and
the eloquence of the King's Advocate. Logan's
children were all forfeited, and Dunbar saved the
money which he owed to Logan's estate. This trial
is not alluded to, either by Calderwood or Arch-
bishop Spottiswoode, in their histories. The five
letters produced in the trial of Logan exist, and
have been accepted as authentic by Mr. Tytler and
Mr. Hill Burton, but not by writers who favour the
Euthvens. We print all five letters in Appendix C.

Meanwhile what had Sprot really said, under
private examination, between July 5 and August 12,
1608, when he was executed ?

This question is to be answered, from the hitherto
unpublished records, in the following chapters. But,
in common charity, the reader must be warned that
the exposition is inevitably puzzling and complex.
Sprot, under examination, lied often, lied variously,
and, perhaps, lied to the last. Moreover much,
indeed everything, depends here on exact dates, and
Sprot's are loose, as was natural in the circumstances,
the events of which he spoke being so remote in
time.

Consequently the results of criticism of his con-
fession may here be stated with brevity. The
persevering student, the reader interested in odd

166 THE GOWKIE MYSTERY

pictures of domestic life, and in strange human
characters may read on at his own peril. But the
actual grains of fact, extracted from tons of false-
hood, may be set down in very few words.

The genuine and hitherto unknown confessions

of Sprot add no absolute certainty as to the exis-
tence of a Growrie conspiracy. His words, when un-
corroborated, can have no weight with a jury. He
confessed that all the alleged Logan papers which,
up to two days before his death, were in possession of
the Privy Council, were forgeries by himself. But,
on August 10, he announced that he had possessed
one genuine letter of Logan to Gowrie (dated July
29, 1600). That letter (our Letter IV) or a forged
copy was then found in his repositories. Expert
evidence, however, decides that this document, like
all the others, is in a specious imitation of Logan's
hand, but that it has other characteristics of Sprot's
own hand, and was penned by Sprot himself. Why
he kept it back so long, why he declared that it
alone was genuine, we do not know. That it is
genuine, in substance, and was copied by Sprot from
a real letter of Logan's in an imitation of Logan's

O <->

hand, and that, if so, it proves Logan's accession to
the conspiracy, is my own private opinion. But
that opinion is based on mere literary considerations,
on what is called ' internal evidence,' and is, there-
fore, purely a matter of subjective impression, like
one's idea of the possible share of Shakespeare in
a play mainly by Fletcher or another. Evidence of

LOGAN OF RESTALRIG 167

this kind is not historical evidence. It follows that
the whole affair of Sprot, and of the alleged Logan
letters, adds nothing certain to the reasons for believ-
ing that there was a Gowrie conspiracy. As far as
Sprot and his documents are concerned, we know
that all, as they stand, are pure fictitious counterfeits
by that unhappy man, while, as to whether one
letter (IV) and perhaps another (I) are genuine in
substance, every reader must form his own opinion,
on literary grounds, and no opinion is of much value.
Such is a brief summary of the facts. But the
tenacious inquirer who can foUow us through the
tangled mazes of Sprot's private confessions, will
perhaps agree with me that they contain distinguish-
able grains of fact, raising a strong surmise that
Logan was really involved with Gowrie in a plot.
Yet this, again, is a subjective impression, which
may vary with each reader.

168 THE GOWPJE MYSTERY

XIII
THE SECRETS OF SPROT

THE final and deepest mystery of the mysterious
Gowrie affair rises, like a mist from a marsh, out of
these facts concerning Sprot. When he was convicted,
and hanged, persisting in his confessions, on August 12,
1608, no letters by Gowrie, or any other conspirator,
were produced in Court. Extracts, however, of a
letter from Gowrie to Logan, and of one from Logan
to Gowrie, were quoted in Sprot's formal Indictment.
They were also quoted in an official publication, an
account of Sprot's case, prepared by Sir William
Hart, the Chief Justice, and issued in 1608. Both
these documents (to which we return) are given by
Mr. Pitcairn, in the second volume of his ' Criminal
Trials.' But later, when the dead Logan was tried
in 1609, five of his alleged plot letters (never publicly
mentioned in Sprot's trial) were produced by the pro-
secution, and not one of these was identical with the
letter of Logan cited in the Indictment of Sprot, and
in the official account of his trial. There were strong
resemblances between Logan's letter, quoted but not
produced, in 1608, and a letter of Logan's produced,

THE SECRETS OF SPROT 169

and attested to be in his handwriting, in 1609. But

^_ / '

there were also remarkable variations.

Of these undeniable facts most modern historians
who were convinced of the guilt of the Euthvens
take no notice ; though the inexplicable discrepan-
cies between the Logan letters quoted in 1608, and
the letters produced as his in 1609, had always been
matters of comment and criticism.

As to the letters of 1609, Mr. Tytler wrote, ' their
import cannot be mistaken; their authenticity has

never been questioned ; they still exist ' Now

assuredly the letters exist. The five alleged originals
were found by Mr. Pitcairn, among the Warrants of
Parliament, in the General Eegister House, in Edin-
burgh, and were published by him, but without their
endorsements, in his ' Criminal Trials ' in Scotland.
(1832).1 Copies of the letters are also ' bookit,' or
engrossed, in the Eecords of Parliament. These
* bookit ' transcripts were made carelessly, and the
old copyist was puzzled by the handwriting and
orthography of the alleged originals before him. The
controversy about the genuineness of the five letters
took new shapes after Mr. Pitcairn discovered those
apparently in Logan's hand, and printed them in 1832.
Mr. Hill Burton accepts them with no hint of doubt,
and if Mr. Tytler was the most learned and impar-
tial, Mr. Hill Burton was the most sceptical of our
historians. Yet on this point of authenticity these
historians were too hasty. The authenticity of the

1 Vol. ii. pp. 282-7.

170 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

letters (except one, No. IV) was denied by the very
man, Sprot, in whose possession most of them were
originally found.1 The evidence of his denial has
been extant ever since Calderwood wrote, who tells
us, clearly on the authority of an older and anony-
mous History in MS. (now in the Advocates' Library),
that Sprot, when first taken (April 13-19, 1608),
accused Logan of writing the letters, but withdrew
the charge under torture, and finally, when kindly
treated by Lord Dunbar, and healed of his wounds,
declared that he himself had forced all the Logan

O O

letters (save one). Yet Logan was, to Sprot' s certain
knowledge (so Sprot persistently declared), involved
in the Gowrie conspiracy.

Now assuredly this appeared to be an incredible
assertion of Calderwood, or of his MS. source. He
was a stern Presbyterian, an enemy of the King
(who banished him), and an intimate friend of the
Cranstoun family, who, in 1600, were closely con-
nected with conspirators of their name. Thus pre-
judiced, Calderwood was believed by Mr. Pitcairn
to have made an untrue or confused statement.
Logan is in a plot ; Sprot knows it, and yet Sprot
forges letters to prove Logan's guilt, and these
letters, found in Sprot's possession, prove his own
guilty knowledge. There seems no sense in such
behaviour. It might have been guessed that Sprot
knew of Logan's guilt, but had no documentary

1 Letter I is a peculiar case, and was not, perhaps, spoken of by
Sprot at all.

THE SECRETS OF SPROT 171

evidence of it, and therefore forged evidence for the
purpose of extorting blackmail from Logan. But,
by 1608, when Sprot was arrested with some of the
documents in his pocket, Logan had _ been dead for
nearly two years.

The guess, that Sprot knew of Logan's treason,
but forged the proof of it, for purposes of black-
mailing him, was not made by historians. The guess
was getting ' warm,' as children say in their game,
was very near the truth, but it was not put forward
by criticism. Historians, in fact, knew that Logan
would not have stood an attempt at extortion.
He was not that kind of man. In 1594, he made a
contract with Napier of Merchistoun, the inventor
of Logarithms. Tradition declared that there was a
hoard of gold in ' the place of Fastcastle.' Napier
was to discover it (probably by the Divining Eod),
and Logan was to give him a third of the profits.
But Napier, knowing his man, inserted a clause in
the deed, to the effect that, after finding the gold, he
was to be allowed a free exit from Fastcastle. Whether
he found the hoard or not, we do not know. But,
two years later, in letting a portion of his property,
Napier introduced the condition that his tenant
should never sublet it to any person of the name of
Logan ! If he found the gold he probably was not
allowed to carry off his third share. Logan being a
resolute character of this kind, Sprot, a cowering
creature, would not forge letters to blackmail him.
He would have been invited to dine at Fastcastle.

172 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

The cliffs are steep, the sea is deep, and tells no
tales.

Thus where was Sprot's motive for forging letters
in Logan's hand, and incriminating the Laird of
Eestalrig, and for carrying them about in his pocket
in 1608 ? But where was his motive for confessing
when taken and examined that he did forge the
letters, if his confession was untrue, while swearing,
to his certain destruction, that he had a guilty
foreknowledge of the Gowrie conspiracy ? He might
conciliate Government and get pardoned as King's
evidence, by producing what he called genuine
Logan letters, and thus proving the conspiracy, and
clearing the Kind's character ; but this he did not

CJ C_,

do. He swore to the last that Logan and he were
both guilty (so Calderwood's authority rightly re-
ported), but that the plot letters were forged by
himself, to what end Calderwood did not say. All
this appeared midsummer madness. Calderwood, it
was argued, must be in error.

A theory was suggested that Sprot really knew
nothing of the Gowrie mystery ; that he had bragged
falsely of his knowledge, in his cups ; that the Govern-
ment pounced on him, made him forge the letters of
Logan to clear the King's character by proving a
conspiracy, and then hanged him, still confessing his
guilt. But Mr. Mark Napier, a learned antiquary,
replied (in a long Appendix to the third volume of
the History by the contemporary Spottiswoode) to
this not very probable conjecture by showing that,

THE SECRETS OF SPROT 173

when they tried Sprot, Government produced no
letters at all, only an alleged account by Sprot of
two letters unproduced. Therefore, in August 1608,
Mr. Napier argued, Government had no letters ; if
they had possessed them, they would infallibly have
produced them. That seemed sound reasoning In
1608 Government had no plot letters ; therefore, the
five produced in the trial of the dead Logan were
forged for the Government, by somebody, between
August 1608 and June 1609. Mr. Napier refused
to accept Calderwood's wild tale that Sprot, while
confessing Logan's guilt and his own, also confessed
to having forged Logan's letters.

Yet Calderwood's version (or rather that of his
anonymous authority in MS.) was literally accurate.
Sprot, in private examinations (July 5, August 11,
1608), confessed to having forged all the letters but
one, the important one, Letter IV, Logan to Gowrie.
This confession the Government burked.

The actual circumstances have remained unknown
and are only to be found in the official, but suppressed,
reports of Sprot's private examinations, now in the
muniment room of the Earl of Haddington. These
papers enable us partly to unravel a coil which,
without them, no ingenuity could disentangle. Sir
Thomas Hamilton, the King's Advocate, popularly
styled ' Tarn o' the Cowgate,' from his house in that
old ' street of palaces,' was the ancestor of Lord
Haddington, who inherits his papers. Sir Thomas
was an eminent financier, lawyer, statesman, and

174 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

historical collector and inquirer, who later became
Lord Binning, and finally Earl of Haddington. As
King's Advocate he held, and preserved, the deposi-
tions, letters, and other documents, used in the private
examinations of Sprot, on and after July 5, 1608.
The records of Sprot's examinations between April 1 9
and July 5, 1600, are not known to be extant.

Sir Thomas's collection consists of summonses, or
drafts of summonses, for treason, against the dead
Logan (1609). There is also a holograph letter of
confession (July 5, 1608) from Sprot to the Earl of
Dunbar. There are the records of the private exami-
nations of Sprot (July 5-August 11, 1600) and of
other persons whom he more or less implicated.
There are copies by Sprot, in his ' course,' that is,
current, handwriting, of two of the five letters in
Logan's hand (or in an imitation of it). These are
letters I and IV, produced at the posthumous trial
of Logan in June 1609. Finally, there are letters
in Logan's hand (or in an imitation of it), addressed
to James Bower and to one Ninian Chirnside, with
allusions to the plot, and there is a long memorandum
of matters of business, also containing hints about
the conspiracy, in Logan's hand, or in an imitation
thereof, addressed to John Bell, and James Bower.

Of these compromising papers, one, a letter to
Chirnside, was vfound by the Eev. Mr. Anderson (in
1902) torn into thirteen pieces (whereof one is miss-
ing), wrapped up in a sheet of foolscap of the period.
Mr. Anderson has placed the pieces together, and

THE SECRETS OF SPROT 175

copied the letter. Of all these documents, only five
letters (those published by Mr. Pitcairn) were
'libelled,' or founded on, and produced by the
Government in the posthumous trial of Logan (1609).
Not one was produced before the jury who tried
Sprot on August 12, 1608. He was condemned, we
said, merely on his own confession. In his ' dittay,'
or impeachment, and in the official account of
the affair, published in 1608, were cited frag-
ments of two letters quoted from memory by Sprot
under private examination. These quotations from
memory differ, we saw, in many places from any of
the five letters produced in the trial of 1609, a fact
which has aroused natural suspicions. This is the
true explanation of the discrepancies between the
plot letter cited in Sprot's impeachment, and in the
Government pamphlet on his case ; and the similar,
though not identical, letter produced in 1609.
The indictment and the tract published by Govern-
ment contain merely Sprot's recollections of the
epistle from Logan to Gowrie. The letter (IV)
produced in 1609 is the genuine letter of Logan,
or so Sprot seems, falsely, to swear. This document
did not come into the hands of Government till
after the Indictment, containing Sprot's quotation of
the letter from memory, was written, or, if it did,
was kept back.

All this has presently to be proved in detail.

As the Government (a fact unknown to our
historians) possessed all the alleged Logan letters

176 THE COWRIE MYSTERY

and papers before Sprot was hanged, and as, at his
trial, they concealed this circumstance even from
Archbishop Spottiswoode (who was present at Sprot's
public trial by jury), a great deal of perplexity has
been caused, and many ingenious but erroneous
conjectures have been invented. The Indictment
or 'dittay' against Sprot, on August 12, 1608, is a
public document, but not an honest one. It con-
tains the following among other averments. We are

^— ' C_^

told that Sprot, in July 1600, at Fastcastle, saw and
read the beginning of a letter from Logan to Gowrie
(Letter IV). Logan therein expresses delight at receiv-
ing a letter of Gowrie's : he is anxious to avenge ' the
Macchiavelian massacre of our dearest friends ' (the
Earl decapitated in 1584). He advises Gowrie to be
circumspect, ' and be earnest with your brother, that
he be not rash in any speeches touching the purpose
of Padua.'

This letter, as thus cited, is not among the five
later produced in 1609 ; it is a blurred reminiscence
of parts of two of them. The reason of these discre-
pancies is that the letter is quoted in the Indictment,
not from the document itself (which apparently
reach the prosecution after the Indictment was
framed), but from a version given from memory by
Sprot, in one of his private examinations. Next,
Sprot is told in his Indictment that, some time later,
Logan asked Bower to find this letter, which Gowrie,
for the sake of secrecy, had returned to Bower to
be delivered to Logan. We know that this was the

THE SECRETS OF SPROT 177

practice of intriguers. After the December riot at
Edinburgh in 1596, the Eev. Eobert Bruce, writing

*— o

to ask Lord Hamilton to head the party of the Kirk,
is said to request him to return his own letter
by the bearer. Gowrie and Logan practised the
same method. The indictment goes on to say that
Bower, being unable to read, asked Sprot to search
for Logan's letter to Gowrie, among his papers, that
Sprot found it, ' abstracted ' it (stole it), retained it,
and ' read it divers times,' a false quotation of the MS.
confession. Sprot really said that he kept the stolen
letter (IV) ' till ' he had framed on it, as a model, three
forged letters. It contained a long passage of which
the ' substance ' is quoted. This passage as printed
in Sprot's Indictment is not to be found textually, in
any of the five letters later produced. It is, we
repeat, merely the version given from memory, by
Sprot, at one of his last private examinations, before
the letter itself came into the hands of Government.
In either form, the letter meant high treason.

Such is the evidence of the Indictment against

Sprot, of August 12, 1608. In the light of Sprot's
real confessions, hitherto lying in the Haddington
muniment room, we know the Indictment to be a
false and garbled document. Next, on the part of
Government, we have always had a published state-
ment by Sir William Hart, the King's Justice, with
an introduction by Dr. George Abbot, later Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, who was in Edinburgh, and
present when Sprot was hanged. This tract was

178 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

published by Bradewood, London, in 1608, and is
reprinted by Pitcairn.

After a verbose, pious, and pedantic diatribe,
Abbot comes to the point. Sprot was arrested
in April 1608, first on the strength 'of some words
that fell from himself,' and, next, ' of some papers
found upon him! What papers ? They are never
mentioned in the Indictment of Sprot. They are
never alluded to in the sequel of Abbot's pamphlet,
containing the official account, by Sir William Hart,
of Sprot's Trial and Examinations. In mentioning
' some papers found upon' Sprot, Dr. Abbot 'let the
cat out of the bag,' but writers like Mr. Napier, and
other sceptics of his way of thinking, deny that any
of the compromising letters were found at all.

No letters, we say, are mentioned by Sir William
Hart, in Abbot's tract (1608), as having been produced.
Archbishop Spottiswoode, who was present at Sprot's
public trial (August 12, 1608), thought the man one
of those insane self-accusers who are common enough,
and observes that he did not ' show the letter ' — that
of Logan to Gowrie (IV). This remark of Spottis-
woode, an Archbishop, a converted Presbyterian, a
courtier, and an advocate for the King, has been a
source of joy to all Ruthven apologists. ' Spottiswoode
saw though the farce,' they say ; ' there was no letter at
all, and, courtier arid recreant as he was, Spottiswoode
had the honesty to say so in his History.'

To this there used to be no reply. But now we
know the actual and discreditable truth. The Go-

THE SECRETS OF SPROT 179

vernment was, in fact, engaged in a shameful scheme
to which Archbishops were better not admitted.
They meant to use this letter (IV) on a later occasion,
but they also meant to use some of the other letters
which Sprot (unknown to Spottiswoode) had con-
fessed to be forgeries. The archiepiscopal con-
science might revolt at such an infamy, Spottiswoode
might tell the King, so the Scottish Government did
not then allow the Archbishop, or the public, to
know that they had any Logan letters. No letter at
all came into open and public Court in 1608. Hart
cites a short one, from Gowrie to Logan. Gowrie
hopes to see Logan, or, at least, to send a trusty
messenger, ' anent the purpose you know. But
rather would I wish yourself to come, not only for
that errand, but for some other thing that I have to
advise with you.' There is no date of place or day.
This letter, harmless enough, was never produced in
Court, and Mr. Barbe supposes that it was a concoction
of Hart's. This is an unlucky conjecture. The Had-
dington MSS. prove that Sprot really recited Gowrie's
letter, or professed to do so, from memory, in one
of his private examinations. The prosecution never
pretended to possess or produce Gowrie's letter.

Next, Hart cites, as Logan's answer to Gowrie's
first letter (which it was not), the passages already
quoted by the prosecution in Sprot's Indictment,
passages out of a letter of Logan's given by Sprot
from memory only. Hart goes on to describe, as if
on Sprot's testimony, certain movements of the

N 2

180 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

Laird's after he received Gowrie's reply to his own
answer to Gowrie. Logan's letter (as given in 1609)
is dated July 29, and it is argued that his movements,
after receiving Gowrie's reply, are inconsistent with
any share in the plot which failed on August 5. Even
if it were so, the fact is unimportant, for Sprot was
really speaking of movements at a date much earlier
than July 29 ; he later gave a separate account of
what Logan was doing at the time of the outbreak of
the plot, an account not quoted by Hart, who fraudu-
lently or accidentally confused the dates. And
next we find it as good as explicitly stated, by Hart,
that this letter of Logan's to Gowrie was never pro-
duced in open Court. ' Being demanded where this
above written letter, written by Eestalrig to the Earl
of Gowrie, which was returned ao-ain bv James

o »/

Bower, is now ? Deponeth .... that he (Sprot)
left the above written letter in his chest, among his
writings, when he was taken and brought away, and
that it is closed and folded within a piece of paper,'
so Hart declares in Abbot's tract. He falsified the
real facts. He could not give the question as origi-
nally put to Sprot, for that involved the publication
of the fact that all the letters but one were forged.
The question in the authentic private report ran
thus : ' Demanded where is that letter which Eestal-
rig wrote to the Earl of Gowrie, whereupon the said
George Sprot wrote and forged the missives produced ? '
(August 10).

The real letter of Logan to Gowrie, the only

THE SECRETS OF SPROT 181

genuine letter (if in any sense genuine), had not on
August 10 been produced. The others were in the
hands of the Government. Hart, in his tract, veils
these circumstances. The Government meant to put
the letters to their own uses, on a later occasion, at
the trial of the dead Logan.

Meanwhile we must keep one fact steadily in
mind. When Sprot confessed to having forged
treasonable letters in Logan's handwriting (as Calder-
wood correctly reports that he did confess), he did
not include among them Letter IV (Logan to Gowrie
July 29, 1600). That letter was never heard of by
Sprot's examiners till August 10, and never came
into the hands of his examiners till late on August 11,
or early on August 12, the day when Sprot was
hanged. Spottiswoode was never made aware that
the letter had been produced. Why Sprot reserved
this piece of evidence so long, why, under the shadow
of the gibbet, he at last produced it, we shall later
attempt to explain, though with but little confi-
dence in any explanation.

Meanwhile, at Sprot's public trial in 1608, the
Government were the conspirators. They burked
the fact that they possessed plot-letters alleged to be
by Logan. They burked the fact that Sprot con-
fessed all these, with one or, perhaps, two exceptions,
to be forgeries by himself. What they quoted, as
letters of Logan and Gowrie, were merely descriptions
of such letters given by Sprot from memory of their
contents.

182 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

XIV
THE LAIRD AND THE NOTARY

WE have now to track Sprot through the labyrinth
of his confessions and evasions, as attested by the
authentic reports of his private examinations between
July 5 and the day of his death. It will be observed
that, while insisting on his own guilt, and on that of
Logan, he produced no documentary evidence, no
genuine letter attributed by him to Logan, nothing
but his own confessed forgeries, till the cord was
almost round his neck — if he did then.

In his confessions he paints with sordid and
squalid realism, the life of a debauched laird,
tortured by terror, and rushing from his fears to
forgetfulness in wine, travel, and pleasure ; and to
strange desperate dreams of flight. As a ' human
document ' the confessions of Sprot are unique, for
that period.

On July 5, 1608, Sprot, in prison, wrote, in his own
ordinary hand, the tale of how he knew of Logan's
guilt : the letter was conveyed to the Earl of Dunbar,
who, with Dunfermline, governed Scotland, under the
absent King. The prisoner gave many sources of
his knowledge, but the real source, if any (Letter IV),

THE LAIED AND THE NOTARY 183

he reserved till he was certain of death (August 10).
Sprot ' knew perfectly,' he said, on July 5, that one
letter from Gowrie and one from his brother,
Alexander Euthven, reached Logan, at Fastcastle and
at Gunnisgreen, a house hard by Eyemouth, where
Sprot was a notary, and held cottage land.1 Bower
carried Logan's answers, and ' long afterwards '
showed Sprot ' the first of Gowrie's letters ' (the
harmless one about desiring an interview) and also a
note of Logan's to Bower himself, ' which is amongst
the rest of the letters produced.' It is No. II, but
in this confession of July 5, Sprot appears to say that
Gowrie's innocent letter to Logan, asking for an
interview, was the source of his forgeries. ' I framed
them all to the true meaning and purpose of the
letter that Bower let me see, to make the matter
more clear by these arguments and circumstances,
for the cause which I have already ' (before July 5)
6 shewn to the Lords ' — that is, for purposes of extort-
ing money from Logan's executors.

This statement was untrue. The brief letter to
Logan from Gowrie was not the model of Sprot's
forgeries ; as he later confessed he had another

model, in a letter of Logan to Gowrie, which he
held back till the last day of his life. But in this
confession of July 5, Sprot admits that he saw, not
only Gowrie's letter to Logan of July 6 (?) 1600
(a letter never produced), but also a ' direction ' or
letter from Logan to his retainer, Bower, dated

1 Laing, Charters, Nos. 1452, 1474-76, 2029.

184 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

'The Canongate, July 18, 1600.' This is our
Letter II. Had it been genuine, then, taken with
Gowrie's letter to Logan, it must have aroused
Sprot's suspicions. But this Letter II, about which
Sprot told discrepant tales, is certainly not genuine.
It is dated, as we said, 'The Canongate, July 18,
1600.' Its purport is to inform Bower, then at
Brockholes, near Eyemouth, that Logan had received
a new letter from Gowrie, concerning certain pro-
posals already made orally to him by the Master of
Euthven. Logan hoped to get the lands of Diiieton
for his share in the enterprise. He ends ' keep all
things very secret, that my Lord, my brother ' (Lord
Home) ' get no knowledge of our purposes, for I '
(would) ' rather be eirdit quickj that is, buried alive
(p. 205).

Now we shall show, later, the source whence Sprot
probably borrowed this phrase as to Lord Home,
and being eirdit quick, which he has introduced into
his forged letter. Moreover, the dates are impossible.
The first of the five letters purports to be from Logan
to an unnamed conspirator, addressed as ' Eight
Honourable Sir.' It is not certain whether this letter
was in the hands of the prosecution before the day
preceding Sprot's execution, nor is it certain whether
it is ever alluded to by Sprot under examination.
But it is dated from Fastcastle on July 18, and tells
the unknown conspirator that Logan has just heard
from Gowrie. It follows that Logan had heard from
Gowrie on July 18 at Fastcastle, that he thence rode

THE LAIRD AND THE NOTARY 185

to Edinburgh, and from Edinburgh wrote his letter
(II) to Bower, bidding Bower hasten to Edinburgh,
to consult. This is absurd. Logan would have
summoned Bower from Fastcastle, much nearer
Bower's home than Edinburgh. Again, in Letter I,
Logan informs the unknown man that he is to answer
Gowrie ' within ten days at furthest.' That being so,
he does not need Bower in such a hurry, unless it be
to carry the letter to the Unknown. But, in that
case, he would have summoned Bower from Fast-
castle, he would not have ridden to Edinburgh and
summoned him thence. Once more, Sprot later
confessed, as we shall see, that this letter to Bower
was dictated to himself by Logan, and that the copy
produced, apparently in Logan's hand, was forged by
him from the letter as dictated to him. He thus
contradicted his earlier statement that Letter II was
shown to him by Bower. He never says that he was
in Edinburgh with Logan on July 18. Besides, it is
not conceivable that, by dictating Letter II to Sprot,
Logan would have voluntarily put himself in the
power of the notary.

This is a fair example of Sprot's apparently
purposeless lying. His real interest throughout was
to persuade the Government that he was giving them
genuine Logan letters. This, however, he denied,
with truth, yet he lied variously about the nature of
his confessed forgeries.

Sprot was so false, that Government might con-
ceive his very confession of having forged the letters

186 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

to be untrue. The skill in handwriting of that age
could not detect them for impostures ; Government
might deem that he had stolen genuine letters from

C_2 C_J

Bower ; letters which might legitimately be produced
as evidence. Indeed this charitable view is perhaps
confirmed by the extraordinary fact, to be later
proved, that three Edinburgh ministers, Mr. Hall,
Mr. Hewat, and Mr. Galloway, with Mr. Lumisden,
minister of Duddingston, were present on occasions
when Sprot confessed to having forged the letters.
Yet these four preachers said nothing, as far as we
hear, when the letters, confessedly forged, were pro-
duced as evidence, in 1609, to ruin Logan's innocent
child. Did the preachers think the letters genuine
in spite of the confession that they were forged ?
We shall see later, in any case, that the contents of
the three letters to the Unknown, and a torn letter,
when compared with Letter IV, demonstrate that
Sprot's final confession to having forged them on the
model of IV is true ; indeed the fact ought to have
been discovered, on internal evidence, even by critics
unaware of his confessions.

We now pursue Sprot's written deposition of
July 5. He gives, as grounds of his knowledge of
Logan's guilt, certain conversations among Logan's
intimates, yeomen or ' bonnet lairds,' or servants,
from which he inferred that Logan was engaged in
treason. Again, just before Logan's death in July
1606, he was delirious, and raved of forfeiture.
But Losan had been engaged in various treasons, so

* — •

THE LAIED AND THE NOTARY 187

his ravings need not refer to the Gowrie affair. He
had been on Bothwell's enterprises, and had privy
dealings with ' Percy,' probably Thomas Percy,
who, in 1602, secretly visited Hume of Manderston,
a kinsman of Logan. That intrigue was certainly
connected merely with James's succession to the
English crown. But one of Logan's retainers, when
this affair of Percy was spoken of among them, said,
according to Sprot, that the Laird had been engaged
in treason ' nearer home.'

Sprot then writes that ' about the time of the
conspiracy,' Logan, with Matthew Logan, rode to
Dundee, where they enjoyed a three days' drinking
bout, and never had the Laird such a surfeit of wine.
But this jaunt could not be part of the Gowrie plot,
and probably occurred after its failure. Later,
Sprot gave a different version of Logan's conduct
immediately before and after Gowrie's death. Once
more, after Logan's death, one Wallace asked Sprot
to be silent, if ever he had heard of ' the Laird's con-
spiracy.' Sprot ended by confessing contritely that
he had forged all the letters (except Letter IV) ' to the
true meaning and purpose of the letter that Bower let
me see,' a passage already quoted, and a falsehood.

What was the ' cause ' for which Sprot forged ?
It was a purpose to blackmail, not Logan, but
Logan's heirs or executors, one of whom was Lord
Home. If Sprot wanted to get anything out of them,
he could terrify them by threatening to show the
forged Logan letters, as genuine, to the Government,

188 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

so securing the ruin of Logan's heirs by forfeiture.

o o «/

He did not do this himself, but he gave forged letters,
for money, to men who were in debt to the dead
Logan's estate, and who might use the letters to

o o

extort remission of what they owed.

On July 15, Sprot was examined before Dunferm-
line, Dunbar, Hart, the King's Advocate (Sir Thomas
Hamilton), and other gentlemen. He said that, about
July 6, 1600, Logan received a letter from Gowrie,
which, two days later, Bower showed to him at Fast-
castle. This is the harmless Gowrie letter, which
Sprot now quoted from memory, as it is printed in
Hart's official account.

Now begins a new puzzle, caused by Sprot's
dates. Of these we can only give a conjectural
version, for the sake of argument. Logan received
a letter from Gowrie about July 6, 1600. He
returned a reply, by Bower, but when did Bower
start with the reply ? Let us say on July 9. Bower
returned, says Sprot, ' within five days,' with ' a
new letter ' from Gowrie. That would bring us to
July 14, but in Letters I and II, dated July 18,
Logan is informing his unknown correspondent, and
Bower, of the receipt of ' a new letter ' from Gowrie.
Why inform Bower of this, if Bower was the bearer
of the new letter ? But the ' new letter ' mentioned
in Letters I and II was brought by a retainer of
Gowrie. In any case, supposing byway of conjecture
that Bower returned from Gowrie about July 15, he
spent the night, says Sprot, with Logan at Gunnis-

THE LAIRD AND TPIE NOTARY 189

green, and next day (July 16) rode to Edinburgh
with Bower, Boig of Lochend, and Matthew Logan.
In Edinburgh he remained ' a certain short space/
say four days, which would bring us to July 20.
Needless to say that this does not fit Letter II,
Logan to Bower, July 18, and Letter I, Logan to
the Unknown, Fastcastle, July 18.

After Logan's return from Edinburgh (which,
according to Sprot, seems to be of about July 20)
Sprot heard Logan and Bower discuss some scheme
by which Logan should get Gowrie's estate of Dirle-
ton, without payment. Bower said nothing could be
done till Logan rode west himself. He discouraged
the whole affair, but Loi?an said, in the hearing of

o o

several persons, that he would hazard his life with
Gowrie. Lady Eestalrig blamed Bower for making
Logan try to sell the lands of Fastcastle (they were
not sold till 1602), of which Bower protested his
innocence. This was after Logan's return from
Edinburgh (say July 20 ; that is, say five days after
Logan's return, say July 25). Bower and Logan had
a long conference in the open air. Sprot was
lounging and spying about beside the river ; a sea-
fisher had taken a basket of blenneys, or 'green-
banes.' Logan called to Sprot to bring him the fish,
and they all supped. Before supper, however, Sprot
walked about with Bower, and tried to ' pump ' him
as to what was going forward. Bower said that
'the Laird should get Dirleton without either gold
or silver, but he feared it should be as dear to him.

190 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

They had another pie in hand than the selling of
land.' Bower then asked Sprot not to meddle, for
he feared that 4 in a few days the Laird would be
either landless or lifeless.'

Certainly this is a vivid description ; Bower and
Logan were sitting on a bench ' at the byre end ; '
Sprot, come on the chance of a supper, was peeping
and watching ; Peter Mason, the angler, at the river
side, ' near the stepping stones,' had his basket of
blenneys on his honest back, his rod or net in his
hand ; the Laird was calling for the fish, was taking
a drink, and, we hope, offering a drink to Mason.
Then followed the lounge and the talk with Bower
before supper, all in the late afternoon of a July day,
the yellow light sleeping on the northern sea below.
Vivid this is, and plausible, but is it true ?

We have reached the approximate date of July 25
(though, of course, after an interval of eight years,
Sprot's memory of dates must be vague). Next day
(July 26) Logan, with Bower and others, rode to
Nine Wells (where David Hume the philosopher was
born), thence, the same night, back to Gunnisgreen,
next night, July 27, to Fastcastle, and thence to
Edinburgh. This brings us (allowing freely for error
of memory) to about July 27, ' the hinder end of
July,' says Sprot. If we make allowance for a
vagueness of four or five days, this does not fit in
badly. Logan's letter to Gowrie (No. IV), which
Sprot finally said that he used as a model for his
forgeries, is dated ' Gunnisgreen, July 29.' 'At the

THE LAIRD AND THE NOTARY 191

beginning of August,' says Sprot (clearly there are
four or five days lost in the reckoning), Logan and
Bower, with Matthew Logan and Willie Crockett,
rode to Edinburgh, ' and there stayed three days, and
the Laird, with Matthew Logan, came home, and Bower
came to his own house of the Brockholes, where he
stayed four days,' and then was sent for by Logan,
' and the Laird was very sad and sorry,' obviously
because of the failure of the plot on August 5.

How do these dates fit into the narrative ? Logan
was at Gunnisgreen (his letter (IV) proves it) on
July 29. (Later we show another error of Sprot's
on this point.) He writes that he is sending Bower
as bearer of his letter to Gowrie. If Bower left
Edinburgh on July 30, he could deliver the letter to
Gowrie, at Perth, on August 2, and be back in Edin-
burgh (whither Logan now went) on August 5, and
Logan could leave Edinburgh on August 6, after
hearing of the deaths of his fellow-conspirators. We
must not press Sprot too hard as to dates so remote
in time. We may grant that Bower, bearing Logan's
letter of July 29, rode with Logan and the others to
Edinburgh ; that at Edinburgh Logan awaited his
return, with a reply ; that he thence learned that
August 5 was the day for the enterprise, and that,
early on August 6, he heard of its failure, and rode
sadly home : all this being granted for the sake of
argument.

Had the news of August 6 been that the King
had mysteriously disappeared, we may conceive that

192 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

Logan would have hurried to Dirleton, met the
Buthvens there, with their prisoner, and sailed with
them to Fastcastle. Or he might have made direct
to Fastcastle, and welcomed them there. His reason
for being at Bestalrig or in the Canongate was to
get the earliest news from Perth, brought across
Fife, and from Bruntisland to Leith.

Whether correct or not, this scheme, allowing for
lapse of memory as to dates, is feasible. Who can,
remote from any documents, remember the dates of
occurrences all through a month now distant by
eight years ? There were no daily newspapers, no
ready means of ascertaining a date. Queen Mary's
accusers, in their chronological account of her move-
ments about the time of Darnley's death, are often
out in their dates. In legal documents of the period
the date of the day of the month of an event is often
left blank. This occurs in the confirmation of
Logan's own will. 'He died — July, 1606.' When
lawyers with plenty of leisure for inquiry were thus
at a loss for dates of days of the month (having since
the Reformation no Saints' days to go by), Sprot, in
prison, might easily go wrong in his chronology.

In any case, taking Letter IV provisionally as
genuine in substance, we note that, on July 29, Logan
did not yet know the date fixed for Gowrie's enter-
prise. He suggested ' the beginning of harvest,' and,
by August 5, harvest had begun. One of the Perth
witnesses was reaping in the ' Morton haugh,' when
he heard the town bell call the citizens to arms. But

THE LAIRD AND THE NOTAEY 193

Gowrie must have acted in great haste, Logan not
knowing, till, say, August 2 or 3, the date of a plot
that exploded on August 5.

Gowrie may have thought, as Lord Maxwell said
when arranging his escape from Edinburgh Castle,
'Sic interprysis are nocht effectuat with delibera-
tionis and advisments, bot with suddane resolu-
tionis.'

It is very important, we must freely admit, as
an argument against the theory of carrying James to
Logan's impregnable keep of Fastcastle, that only
one question, in our papers, is asked as to the
provisioning of Fastcastle, and that merely as to the
supply of drink ! Possibly this had been ascer-
tained in Sprot's earlier and unrecorded examinations
(April 19-July 5). One poor hogshead of wine (a
trifle to Logan) had been sent in that summer ;
so Matthew Logan deponed. As Logan had often
used Fastcastle before, for treasonable purposes,
he was not (it may be supposed) likely to leave it
without provisions. Moreover these could be brought
by sea, from Dirleton, where Carey (August 11)
says that Gowrie had stored ' all his provision.'
Moreover Government did not wish to prove in-
tent to kidnap the King. That was commonly
regarded as a harmless constitutional practice, not
justifying the slaughter of the Euthvens. From
the first, Government insisted that murder was in-
tended. In the Latin indictment of the dead Logan
this is again dwelt on ; Fastcastle is only to be the

194 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

safe haven of the murderers. This is a misreading
of Letter IV, where Fastcastle is merely spoken of
as to be used for a meeting, and ' the concluding
of our plot.'

Thus it cannot be concealed that, on July 29
(granting Letter IV to have a basis), the plot, as
far as Logan knew, was ' in the air.' If Fastcastle
was to be used by the conspirators, it must have
been taken in the rough, on the chance that it
was provided, or that Gowrie could bring his own
supplies from Dirleton by sea. This extreme vague-
ness undeniably throws great doubt on Logan's part
in the plot ; Letter IV, if genuine, being the source
of our perplexity. But, if it is not genuine, that is,
in substance, there is only rumour, later to be dis-
cussed, to hint that Logan was in any way connected
with Gowrie.

We left Bower and Logan conversing dolefully
some da}^s after the failure of the plot. At this point
the perhaps insuperable difficulty arises, why did
they not, as soon as they returned from Edinburgh,
destroy every inch of paper connected with the con-
spiracy ? One letter at least (Logan's to Gowrie,
July 29) was not burned, according to Sprot, but
was later stolen by himself from Bower ; though he
reserved this confession to the last day of his life but
two. We might have expected Logan to take the
letter from Bower as soon as they met, and to burn
or, for that matter, swallow it if no fire was con-
venient ! Yet, according to Sprot, in his final con-

THE LAIRD AND THE NOTAEY 195

fession, Logan let Bower keep the damning paper for
months. If this be true, we can only say quos Dem
vult perdere prim dementat. People do keep damning
letters, constant experience proves the fact.

After Bower had met Logan in his melancholy
mood, he rode away, and remained absent for four
days, on what errand Sprot did not know, and
during the next fortnight, while Scotland was ring-
ing with the Gowrie tragedy, Sprot saw nothing of
Logan.

Next, Loo'an went to church at Coldino-hame, on

O O

a Sunday, and met Bower : next day they dined to-
gether at Gunnisgreen. Bower was gloomy. Logan
said, ' Be it as it will, I must take my fortune, and
I will tell you, Laird Bower, the scaffold is the
best death that a man can die.' Logan, if he said
this, must have been drunk ; he very often was.

It was at this point, in answer to a question,
that Sprot confessed that Logan's letter to Bower
(No. II) was a forgery by himself. The actual letter,
Sprot said, was dictated by Logan to him, and he
made a counterfeit copy in imitation of Logan's
handwriting. We have stated the difficulties in-
volved . in this obvious falsehood. Sprot was trying
every ruse to conceal his alleged source and model,
Letter IV.

Sprot was next asked about a certain memoran-
dum by Logan directed to Bower and to one John
Bell, in 1605. This document was actually found in
Sprot's c pocquet ' when he was arrested, and it con-

o 2

196 THE GOWBIE MYSTERY

tained certain very compromising items. Sprot re-
plied that lie forged the memorandum, in the autumn
of 1606, when he forged the other letters. He copied
most of it from an actual but innocent note of
Logan's on business matters, and added the compro-
mising items out of his own invention. He made three
copies of this forgery, one was produced ; he gave
another to a man named Heddilstane or Heddilshaw,
a dweller in Berwick, in September 1607 ; the third,
' in course hand,' he gave to another client, ' the
goodman of Eentoun,' Hume. One was to be used
to terrorise Logan's executors, to whom Heddil-
stane, but not Eentoun, was in debt. Sprot's words
are important. 'He omitted nothing that was in
the original' (Logan's memorandum on business
matters), ' but elicit ' (added) ' two articles to his copy,
the one concerning Ninian Chirnside ' (as to a
dangerous plot-letter lost by Bower), ' the other, where
the Laird ordered Bower to tear his missive letters.
He grants that he wrote another copy with his course
hand, copied from his copy, and gave it to the good-
man of Eentoun,' while the copy given to Heddil-
stane ' was of his counterfeited writing,' an imitation
of Logan's hand.

Perhaps Sprot had two methods and scales of
blackmail. For one, he invented damning facts, and
wrote them out in imitation of Logan's writing. The
other species was cheaper : a copy in his ' course
hand' of his more elaborate forgeries in Logan's
hand. Now the two copies of Letters I and IV,

« ;

;

i ' f's
'

2.,

•.i»/~i iv c/'

./. • ••

.) »»Vfcv/^»V .-. /- ,

„/ .... 3. ', J s..,,

• ;

« •€',

f^i^ V^ r-T *-j Ov~
•-v _ ~t«. , , i , *

r • '-• *
.:,, i ,i-

*' f f « - A -» ^

/- -a, ^^ A' ="fX
^ . -i >$»;,v- r-y^-'- ^ ,

~f3-Jfe^^&&ft

•*"!'• • 1 1

-. ,i»

,/>
i * "U . y >>" -V ^ti^-- <*• '-

«.*»<^ b^ «,»v

•vvo '

/•> . ^ -
> i . </ » £»- -^ \. -

v.
• ' - -\ "- • , ^" - T

jj /-

C ---v-* I

« ^

_. x^*- ^^l J
/

rT.»( / , •'• x 6r,

> ^ •') /

4tv>i/S k1

*£ >"»*. . »"-' '.(

. ^

•"• c."-'-- ^ / fe
\V^ >^-' V>»--*

, .i V ^ ,,,-

i:1fc-ff&*l

l> "l\-™

»•' ' *5

*•' .--^, ,V 6< fi, ,<, •• •"-•

t. Jxfa .4 &*v* •,- ^ .^^ '•'"•'

( I. ^ *• /• .

HANDWRITING OF LOGAN
(Jauuary 1585-6)

p. 196.

THE LAIRD AND THE NOTARY 197

which, at the end of his life, as we shall see, Sprot
attested by signed endorsements, were in his ' course
hand.' He had them ready for customers, when he
was arrested in April 1608, and they were doubt-
less found in his ' kist ' on the day before his death,
with the alleged original of Letter IV. Up to
August 11, at a certain hour, Government had
neither the alleged original, nor Sprot's ' course
hand copy ' of Letter IV, otherwise he would not
have needed to quote IV from memory, as he did
on that occasion.

Among these minor forgeries, to be used in
blackmailing operations, was a letter nominally from
Logan to one Ninian or Eingan Chirnside. This man
was a member of the family of Chirnside of Easter
Chirnside ; his own estate was Whitsumlaws. All
these Chirnsides and Humes of Berwickshire were a
turbulent and lawless gang, true borderers. Ninian
is addressed, by Logan, as ' brother ; ' they were
most intimate friends. It was Ninian who (as the
endorsement shows) produced our Letter V, on
April 19 ; he had purchased it, for the usual ends,
from Sprot, being a great debtor (as Logan's will
proves) to his estate.

To track these men through the background of
history is to have a notion of the Day of Judgment.
Old forgotten iniquities and adventures leap to light.
Chirnside, like Logan and the Douglases of Whitt-
ingham, and John Colville, and the Laird of Spot,
had followed the fortunes of wild Frank Stewart,

198 THE GOWKIE MYSTERY

Earl of Bothwell, and nephew of the Bothwell of
Queen Mary. Frank Bothwell was driven into his
perilous courses by a charge of practising witch-
craft against the Kind's life. Absurd as this sounds,

~ o

Bothwell had probably tried it for what it was worth.
When he was ruined, pursued, driven, child of the
Kirk as he seemed, into the Catholic faction, his old
accomplice, Colville, took a solemn farewell of him.
' By me your lordship was cleared of the odious im-
putation of witchcraft .... but God only knows
how far I hazarded my conscience in making black
white, and darkness light for your sake ' (Sep-
tember 12, 1594).1

After Bothwell, when he trapped the King by aid
of Lady Gowrie (July 1593), recovered power for a
while, he defended himself on this charge of witch-
craft. He had consulted and employed the wizard,
Eichard Graham, who now accused him of attempt-
ing the King's life by sorcery. But he had only
employed Graham to heal the Earl of Angus, himself
dying of witchcraft. Bothwell was charged with
employing a retainer, Ninian Chirnside, to arrange
more than twenty-one meetings with the wizard
Graham ; the result being the procurement of a poison,
' adder skins, toad skins, and the hippomanes in the
brain of a vouno* foal.' to ooze the uiices on the

«/ o */

King, ' a poison of such vehemency as should have
presently cut him off.' Isobel Gowdie, accused of
witchcraft in 1622, confessed to having employed

1 Hatfield Calendar ', iv. 659.

THE LAIRD AND THE NOTARY 199

a similar charm.1 All this Bothwell, instructed by
Colville, denied, but admitted that he had sent Ninian
Chirnside twice to the wizard, all in the interests of
the dying Earl of Angus.2

This Chirnside, then, was a borderer prone to
desperate enterprises and darkling rides, and mid-
night meetings with the wizard Graham in lonely
shepherds' cottages, as was alleged. He could also
sink to blackmailing the orphan child of his ' brother,'
Logan of Eestalrig.

To go on with Sprot's confessions ; he had forged,
he said, receipts from Logan to the man named
Edward or Ned Heddilstane for some of the money
which Heddilstane owed him. For these forgeries
his client paid him well, if not willingly. Sprot
frequently blackmailed Ned, ' whenever he want
siller.'

It must be granted that Sprot was a liar so com-
plex, and a forger so skilled (for the time, that is), that
nothing which he said or produced can be reckoned,
as such, as evidence. On the other hand, his power of
describing or inventing scenes, real or fictitious, was
of high artistic merit, so that he appears occasionally
either to deviate into truth, or to have been a real-
istic novelist born centuries too early. Why then,
it may be asked, do we doubt that Sprot may have
forged, without a genuine model, Letter IV? The
answer will appear in due time. Letter IV, as Sprot
confessed, is certainly the model of all the letters

1 Pitcairn, iii. Appendix vii. 2 Border Calendar, i. 486, 487.

200 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

which he forged, whether those produced or those
suppressed. He was afraid to wander from his
model, which he repeated in Letters I (?), Ill, V,
and in the unproduced letters, including one which
we have found in twelve torn fragments, with the
signature missing.

201

THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF THE NOTAEY

ON July 16, Sprot was again examined. Spottis-
woode, Archbishop of Glasgow, the historian, was
present, on this occasion only, with Dunfermline,
Dunbar, Sir Thomas Hamilton, Hart, and other
nobles and officials. None of them signs the record,
which, in this case only, is merely attested by the
signature of Primrose, the Clerk of Council, one of
Lord Eosebery's family. In this session Sprot said
nothing about forging the letters. The Archbishop
was not to know.

Asked if he had any more reminiscences, Sprot
said that, in November 1602, Fastcastle having been
sold, Logan asked Bower ' for God's sake ' to bring
him any of the letters about the Gowrie affair which
he might have in keeping. Bower said that he had
no dangerous papers except one letter from Alex-
ander Euthven, and another from ' Mr. Andro Clerk.'
This Clerk was a Jesuit, who chiefly dealt between
Spain and the Scotch Catholics. He was involved
in the affair called ' The Spanish Blanks' (1593), and
visited the rebel Catholic peers of the North, Angus,

202 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

Errol, and Huntly.1 Logan, like Bothwell, was
ready to intrigue either with the Kirk or the Jesuits,
and he seems to have had some personal acquaintance
with Father Andrew.

Bower left Logan, to look for these letters at his
own house at Brockholes, and Logan passed a night
of sleepless anxiety. One of the mysteries of the
case is that Logan entrusted Bower, who could not
read, with all his papers. If one of them was needed,
Bower had to employ a person who could read to
find it : probably he used, as a rule, the help of his
better educated son, Valentine. After Logan's rest-
less night, Bower returned with the two letters,
Euthven's and Clerk's, which Logan ' burned in the
fire.'

(Let it be remembered that Sprot has not yet
introduced Letter IV into his depositions, though
that was by far the most important.)

After burning Clerk's and Euthven's letters,

Logan dictated to Sprot a letter to John Baillie of
Littlegill, informing him of the fact. Bower rode
off with the letter, and Logan bade Sprot be silent
about all these things, for he had learned, from
Bower, that Sprot knew a good deal. Here the
amat ;ur of the art of fiction asks, why did Sprot
drag in Mr. John Baillie of Littlegill ? If Logan, as
Sprot swore, informed Baillie about the burned
letters, then Baillie had a guilty knowledge of the
conspiracy. Poor Baillie was instantly ' put in ward '

1 Thorpe, ii. 614, 616, 617. Border Calendar, i. 457.

J-

,- ir,.^

•

Hp*~ /C — T

v-7

•

h! /

HAND OF LOGAN AS FORGED BY SPROT
(Second page of Letter I V)

p. 202.

THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF THE NOTARY 203

under the charge of the Earl of Dunfermline. But,
011 the day after Sprot was hanged, namely on
August 13, Baillie was set free, on bail of 10,000
marks to appear before the Privy Council if called
upon. Three of Sprot's other victims, Maul, Crock-
ett, and William Galloway, were set free on their
personal recognisances, but Mossman and Matthew
Logan were kept in prison, and Chirnside was not
out of danger of the law for several years, as we
learn from the Privy Council Eegister. Nothing
was ever proved against any of these men. After
the posthumous trial of Logan (June 1609) the King-
bade the Council discharge John Baillie from his
bail, ' as we rest now fully persuaded that there was
no just cause of imputation against the said John.'
So the Eeaister of the Privy Council informs us.1

**—; \J

Thus, if Sprot told the truth about all these men,
no corroborative facts were discovered, while the
only proofs of his charges against Logan were the
papers which, with one exception, he confessed to
be forgeries, executed by himself, for purposes of
extortion.

To ^o on with his confessions : The Christmas

c_?

of 1602 arrived, and ' The Laird keepit ane great
Yule at Gunnisgreen.' On the third day of the
feast, Logan openly said to Bower, at table, ' I shall
sleep better this night than that night when I sent
you for the letters ' (in November), ' for now I am
sure that none of these matters will ever come to

1 Privy Council Eegister, viii. 150-2, 605.

204 THE GOWRTE MYSTERY

further light, if you be true.' Bower answered,
' I protest before God I shall be counted the most
damnable traitor in the world, if any man on earth
know, for I have buried them.'

After supper, Bower and Logan called Sprot out
on to the open hill-side. Logan said that Bower
confessed to having shown Sprot a letter of Gowrie's.
What, he asked, did Sprot think of the matter ?
Sprot, with protestations of loyalty, said that he
thought that Logan had been in the Gowrie con-

o O

spiracy. Logan then asked for an oath of secrecy,
promising ' to be the best sight you ever saw,' and
taking out 121. (Scots) bade Sprot buy corn for his
children. Asked who were present at the scene of the
supper, Sprot named eight yeomen. ' The lady ' (Lady
Eestalrig) ' was also present at table that night, and
at her rising she said, " The Devil delight in such a
feast, that will make all the children weep hereafter,"
and this she spoke, as she went past the end of the
table. And, after entering the other chamber, she
wept a while, ' and we saw her going up and down the
chamber weeping.'

A fortnight later, Lady Eestalrig blamed Bower
for the selling of Fastcastle. Bower appealed to
Logan ; it was Logan's fault, not his. ' One of two
things,' said Bower, ' must make you sell your lands ;
either you think your children are bastards, or you
have planned some treason.' The children were not
those of Lady Eestalrig, but by former marriages.
Logan replied, ' If I had all the land between the

THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF THE NOTARY 205

Orient and the Occident, I would sell the same, and,
if I could not get money for it, I would give it to good
fellows.' On another occasion Logan said to Bower,
' I am for no land, I told you before and will tell you
again. You have not learned the art of memory.'

In fact, Logan did sell, not only Fastcastle, but
Flemington and Eestalrig. We know how the Scot
then clung to his acres. Why did Logan sell all ?
It does not appear, as we have shown, that he was in
debt. If he had been, his creditors would have had
him ' put to the horn,' proclaimed a recalcitrant
debtor, and the record thereof would be found in the
Privy Council Eegister. But there is no such matter.
Sprot supposed that Logan wished to turn his estates
into money, to be ready for flight, if the truth ever
came out. The haste to sell all his lands is certainly
a suspicious point against Logan. He kept on giving
Sprot money (hush money, and for forgeries to
defraud others, sometimes) and taking Sprot's oath of
secrecy.

A remarkable anecdote follows ; remarkable on
this account. In the letter (II) which Logan is said
by Sprot to have written to Bower (July 18, 1600)
occurs the phrase, ' Keep all things very secret, that
my lord my brother get no knowledge of our purposes,
for I rather be eirdit quik ' — would rather be buried
alive (p. 184). This ' my lord my brother ' is obviously
meant for Alexander, sixth Lord Home, whose father,
the fifth lord, had married Agnes, sister of Patrick,
sixth Lord Gray, and widow of Sir Eobert Logan of

206 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

Eestalrig. By Sir Eobert, Lady Eestalrig had a son,
the Loo'an of this affair ; and, when, after Sir Eobert's

C_J

death, she married the fifth Lord Home, she had to
him a son, Alexander, sixth Lord Home. Our Logan
and the sixth Lord Home were, therefore, brothers
uterine.1

Now, if we accept as genuine (in substance) the
one letter which Sprot declared to be really written
by Logan (No. IV), Gowrie was anxious that Home,
a person of great importance, Warden on the Border,
should be initiated into the conspiracy. As Gowrie
had been absent from Scotland, between August 1594
(when he, as a lad, was in league with the wild king-
catcher, Francis Stewart of Bothwell), and May 1600,
we ask, what did Gowrie know of Home, and why
did he think him an useful recruit ? The answer is
that (as we showed in another connection, p. 130)
Gowrie was in Paris in February- April 1600, that
Home was also in Paris at the same time (arriv-
ing in Scotland, at his house of Douglas, April 18,
1600), and that Home did not go to Court, on his
return, owing to the King's displeasure because of
his ' try sting 'with Bothwell' in Brussels.2

Here then we have, in March 1600, Gowrie and
Home, in Paris, and Bothwell, the King-catcher,
meeting Home in Brussels. Therefore, when Letter
IV represents Gowrie as anxious to bring Home,

1 Pitcairn, ii. 287, n 2.

2 Neville to Cecil, Paris, Feb. 27, 1600. Willoughby to Cecil,
Berwick, April 22, 1600. Winwood Memorials, p. 166. Border
Calendar, ii. 645.

THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF THE NOTARY 207

who had been consulting Bothwell, into his plot,
nothing can be more natural. Gowrie himself
conceivably met his old rebellious ally, Bothwell ;
he was certain to meet Home in Paris, and Home,
owning Douglas Castle and Home Castle near the
Border, would have been a most serviceable assistant.
It must also be remembered that Home was, at heart,
a Catholic, a recent and reluctant Protestant convert,
6 compelled to come in,' by the Kirk. Bothwell was
a Catholic ; Gowrie, he declared, was another ; Logan
was a trafficker with Jesuits, and an ' idolater ' in
the matter of ' keeping great Yules.' Logan, how-
ever, if Letter IV is genuine, in substance, wrote
that he ' utterly dissented ' from Gowrie's opinion.
He would not try his brother's, Home's, mind in
the matter, or ' consent that he ever should be
counsellor thereto, for, in good faith, he will never
help his friend, nor harm his foe.'

Such being the relations (if we accept Letter IV
as in substance genuine) between Gowrie, Home, and
Logan, we can appreciate Sprot's anecdote, now to
be given, concerning Lady Home. Logan, -according
to Sprot, said to him, in Edinburgh, early in 1602,
6 Thou rememberest what my Lady Home said to me,
when she would not suffer my lord to subscribe my
contract for Fentoun, because I would not allow two
thousand marks to be kept out of the security, and
take her word for them ? She said to me, which was
a great knell to my heart, that since her coming to the
town, she knew that I had been in some dealing with

208 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

the Earl of Gowrie about Dirleton.' Now Dirleton,
according to Sprot, was to have been Logan's pay-
ment from Gowrie, for his aid in the plot.

Logan then asked Sprot if he had blabbed to
Lady Home, but Sprot replied that ' he had never
spoken to her Ladyship but that same day, although
he had read the contract ' (as to Fentoun) ' before
him and her in the abbey.' of Coldingham, probably.
Logan then requested Sprot to keep out of Lady
Home's sight, lest she should ask questions, 'for I
had rather be eirdit quick than either my Lord or she
knew anything of it!

Now, in Letter II (July 18, 1600), from Logan to
Bower, Logan, as we saw, is made to write, ' See
that my Lord, my brother, gets no knowledge of our
purposes, for I (sic) rather be eirdit quik' The phrase
recurs in another of the forged letters not produced
in court.

It is thus a probable inference that Logan did use
this expression to Sprot, in describing the conversa-
tion about Lady Home, and that Sprot inserted it
into his forged Letter II (Logan to Bower). But,
clever as Sprot was, he is scarcely likely to have
invented the conversation of Logan with Lady Home,
arising out of Logan's attempt to do some business
with Lord Home about Fentoun. A difficulty, raised
by Lady Home, led up to the lady's allusion to
Dirleton, c which was a great knell to my heart,' said
Logan. This is one of the passages which indicate
a basis of truth in the confessions of Sprot. Again,

THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF THE NOTARY 209

as Home and Gowrie were in Paris together, while
Bothwell was in Brussels, in February 1600, and as
Home certainly, and Gowrie conceivably, met Both-
well, it may well have been that Gowrie heard of
Logan from Bothwell, the old ally of both, and marked
him as a ' useful hand. Moreover, he could not but
have heard of Logan's qualities and his keep, Fast-
castle, in the troubles and conspiracies of 1592-1594.

After making these depositions, Sprot attested
them, with phrases of awful solemnity, ' were I pre-
sently within one hour to die.' He especially insisted
that he had written, to Logan's dictation, the letter
informing John Baillie of Littlegill that all Gowrie's
papers were burned. As we saw, in November 1609,
the King deliberately cleared Baillie of all suspicion.
There could be no evidence. Bower, the messenger,
was dead.

Baillie was now called. He denied on oath that
he had ever received the letter from Logan. He had
never seen Gowrie, ' except on the day he came first
home, and rode up the street of Edinburgh.' Con-
fronted with Baillie, ' Sprot abides by his deposition.'

Willie Crockett was then called. He had been at
Logan's ' great Yule ' in Gunnisgreen, where Logan,
according to Sprot, made the imprudent speeches.
Crockett had also been at Dundee with Logan, he
said, but it was in the summer of 1603. He
did not hear Logan's imprudent speech to Bower,
at the Yule supper. As to the weeping of Lady
Eestalrig, he had often seen her weep, and heard her

210 THE GOAVRIE MYSTERY

declare that Logan would ruin his family. He only
remembered, as to the Yule supper, a quarrel be-
tween Loiran and Willie Home.

This was the only examination at which Arch-
bishop Spottiswoode attended. Neither he nor any
of the Lords (as we have said already) signed the
record, which is attested only by James Primrose,
Clerk of Council, signing at the foot of each page.
Had the Lords ' quitted the diet ' ?

The next examination was held on July 22, Dun-
fermline, Dunbar, Sir Thomas Hamilton, the President
of the Court of Session, and other officials, all lay-
men, being present. Sprot incidentally remarked that
Logan visited London, in 1603, after King James
ascended the English throne. Logan appears to have
gone merely for pleasure ; he had seen London before,
in the winter of 1586. On his return he said that
he would ' never bestow a groat on such vanities '
as the celebration of the King's holiday, August 5,
the anniversary of the Gowrie tragedy ; adding
' when the King has cut off all the noblemen of the
country he will live at ease.' But many citizens
disliked the 5th of August holiday as much as Logan
did.

In the autumn of 1605, Logan again visited Lon-
don. In Sprot's account of his revels there, and his
bad reception, we have either proof of Logan's guilt,
if the tale be true, or high testimony to Sprot's powers
as an artist in fiction. He says that Matthew Logan
accompanied the Laird to town in September 1605, and

•

xr. -

2T/*p**"

^ v **^ *• . ."7—- «&C ,,»,,,_

/ -^>-S ~***^ > b°c./. •

"/ '- lc^ <*£.* - * .:T7

,*.£-- -6/. . ^'v1? "^ ' >A-

/ ; .

/ • r s '

"^>$-^.->*.t t- ^y^- ,->»^ -fr-zS---?^ |

i , ,, ,/ r I f i A^ '

>A> . •- Cu-^> • <o TO^-/*- C>S c-^C^Jc*/

y {^frWfa^jfJt ~L »,

^-^.«^> ^^"/L

C-- , -^~5~Y'
— - f&/'~~*~ ^~^

t*~r~ fJffteZ- ' ^*- u - ' - /t»» vt/I

^r - - £»<

-^v»C^

•*1^

~y/Sl,^.-

<*•'•*'<$•*£'*'*- -«•- -»*y

€

<i-

HANDWRITING OF SPROT
(July 5, 1COS)

p. 210.

THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF THE NOTARY 211

in November was sent back with letters to Bower.
Eight days later, Matthew took Sprot to Coldingham,
to meet Bower, and get his answer to the letters. It
was a Sunday ; these devotees heard sermon, and
then dined together at John Corsar's. After dinner
Bower took Sprot apart, and showed him two letters.
Would Sprot read to him the first few words, that he
might know which letter he had to answer ? The
first letter shown (so Sprot writes on the margin of
his recorded deposition) referred to the money owed
to Logan, by the Earl of Dunbar, for Gunnisgreen
and the lands of Flemington. Logan had expected
to get the purchase money from Dunbar in London ;
he never got more than 18,000 out of 33,000 marks.
Sprot wrote for Bower the answer to this business
letter, and gave it to Matthew Logan to be sent to
Logan in London. Matthew, being interrogated,
denied that he sent any letter back to Logan, though
he owned that Sprot wrote one ; and he denied that
Sprot and Bower had any conference at all on the
occasion. But Sprot had asserted that the conference
with Bower occurred after Matthew Logan left them
at Corsar's house, where they dined, as Matthew ad-
mitted, after sermon. Matthew denied too much.

A curious conference it was. Bower asked Sprot
to read to him the other of Logan's two letters,
directed to himself. It ran, ' Laird Bower, — I wot
not what I should say or think of this world ! It is
very hard to trust in any man, for apparently there
is no constancy or faithfulness. For since I cam

212 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

here they whom I thought to have been my most
entire friends have uttered to me most injurie, and
have given me the defiance, and say I am not worthy
to live, u and if the King heard what has moved you
to put away all your lands, and debosch yourself, you
would not make such merryness, and play the com-
panion in London, as you do so near his Majestie."

Logan went on to express his fear that Bower's rash
speeches had roused these suspicions of ' the auld
misterie ye ken of.' ' God forgive you, but I have
had no rest since these speeches were upcast to me/
Bower was to take o-reat care of this letter, ' for it

is within three letters enclosed,' and is confided to
Matthew Logan (who travelled by sea) as a trusty
man.

Bower was much moved by this melancholy
letter, and denied that he had been gossiping. He had
twice, before Logan rode south, advised him to be very
careful never even to mention the name of Gowrie.

Sprot said that he, too, was uneasy, for, if any-
thing came out, he himself was in evil case. Lo^an

o o

visited France, as well as London, at this time ; he
returned home in the spring of 1606, but Bower
expressed the belief that he would go on to Spain,
k to meet Bothwell and Father Andrew Clerk, and
if he come home it will be rather to die in his
own country than for any pleasure he has to live.'
Bothwell and Father Andrew, of course, were both
Catholic intriguers, among whom Bothwell reckoned
Logan and Gowrie.

THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF THE NOTARY 213

Now the letter to Bower here attributed to Logan,
telling of the new ' knell at his heart ' when he is
rebuked and insulted as he plays the merry com-
panion in London, and near the Court ; his touching
complaint of the falseness of the world (he himself
being certainly the blackest of traitors), with the
distress of Bovver, do make up a very natural de-
scription. The ghost of his guilt haunts Logan, he
cannot drown it in a red sea of burgundy : life has
lost its flavour ; if he returns, it will be with the true
Scottish desire to die in his own country, though of
his ancient family's lands he has not kept an acre.
Pleasant rich Eestalrig, strong Fastcastle, jolly Gun-
nisgreen of the ' great Yules,' all are gone. Nothing
is left.

Surely, if Sprot invented all this, he was a
novelist born out of due time. Either he told truth,
or, in fiction, he rivalled De Foe.

Matthew Logan, being called, contradicted Sprot,
as we have already said. He himself had seen Bower
when he brought him Logan's letter from London,
take his son, Valentine, apart, and knew that Valen-
tine read a letter to him. ' It was a meikle letter,'
Matthew said, and, if Sprot tell truth, it contained
three enclosures. Bower may have stopped his son
from reading the melancholy and compromising
epistle, and kept it to be read by Sprot. Logan's
folly in writing at all was the madness that has
ruined so many men and women.

Matthew could not remember having ridden to

214 THE COWRIE MYSTERY

Edinburgh with Logan in July 1600, just before the
Gowrie affair, as Sprot had declared that he did.
We could scarcely expect him to remember that.
He could remember nothing at all that was compro-
mising, nothing of Logan's rash speeches. As to the
Yule feast at Gunnisgreen, he averred that Lady
Eestalrig only said, ' The Devil delight in such a
feast that makes discord, and makes the house ado '
-that is, gives trouble. Asked if wine and beer
were stored in Fastcastle, in 1600, he said, as has
already been stated, that a hogshead of wine was
therein. He himself, he said, had been ' in the west,'
at the time of the Gowrie tragedy, and first heard of
it at Falkirk.

On August 6, Sprot was interrogated again.
Only lay lords were present : there were no clergy-
men nor lawyers. He denied that he had received
any promise of life or reward. He asked to be
confronted with Matthew Logan, and reported a con-
versation between them, held when Lord Dunbar took
possession of Gunnisgreen. Matthew then hoped to
ride with the Laird to London (1605), but said, 'Alas,
Geordie Sprot, what shall we all do now, now
nothing is left ? I was aye feared for it, for I know
the Laird has done some evil turn, and he will not
bide in the country, and woe's me therefor.'

Sprot asked what the ' evil turn ' was. Matthew
answered, ' I know well enough, but, as the proverb
goes, " what lies not in my way breaks not my
shins." '

THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF THE NOTARY 215

Sprot added that, after Bower's death (January
1606), Logan wrote to him from London, not having
heard the news of his decease. Lady Eestalrig
opened the letter and wrote a postscript ' Give this to
Laird Bower, for I trow that he be ridden to Hell, as
he oft times said to the Laird that he would do.' In
Letter IV. Logan tells Gowrie that he believes Bower
4 would ride to Hell's gate to pleasure him.'

Sprot was now asked about two letters. One of
these (Logan to Chirnside) is endorsed, 'Production
by Niniane Chirnesyde. XIII April 1608.' Another
is Letter Y, endorsed 'produced by Ninian Chirn-
side,' a fact first noted by Mr. Anderson. Yet another
is the letter in twelve torn pieces. Logan, in the
first of these three letters, requests Chirnside to find
a letter which Bower lost in Dunglas. The letter
imperils Logan's life and lands. The date is Septem-
ber 23, and purports, falsely, to be written before
Logan goes to London (1605). Sprot explained that
he forged the letters, that Chirnside might blackmail
Logan's executors, and make them forgive him the
debts which (as Logan's will proves) he owed to the
estate.

Here we cite the letter of the twelve fragments.
It is, of course, a forgery by Sprot, to enable Chirn-
side to terrorise his creditors, Logan's executors.
But, as it directly implicates Chirnside himself in
the Gowrie conspiracy, probably he disliked it, and
tore it up. Yet the artist could not part with his
work ; it still lies, now reconstructed, in the old

216 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

folio sheet of paper. The reader will remark that,
like Letters I (?), Ill, and V, this torn letter is a mere
pastiche framed (as Sprot confessed) on ideas and
expressions in Letter IV.

Letter found among the Haddington MSS. torn into
thirteen pieces (one lost)- -these have been placed in
order, but at Least one line of the piece is wanting.

Brother, according to my promise the last da}7
ve met in the kannogate I have sent this berair to
my lord vith my answer of all thingis, and, I pray
you ryde vith him till his lordschip, and bevar that
he speik vith na other person bot his lordschipis self
and M.A. his lordschipis brother, and specially let
nocht his lordschipis pedagog [Mr. Ehynd] ken ony
thing of the matter, bot forder him hame agane,
becawse the purpos is parilouse, as ye knaw the
danger. And yit for my ain part I protest befoir
God I sail keip trew condicion till his lordschip, and
sail hasard albeit it var to the vary skafald, and
bid his lordschip tak nane other opinion bot gude
of the trustyness of this silly aid man [Bower] for
I dar baldlie concredit my lyf and all other thing I
have elliss in this varld onto his credit, and I trow
he sail nocht frustrat my gude expectacion. Burn
or send bak agane as I did vith you, so till meit-
ting, and ever I rest, Yowre brother to power redy,
Eestalrige.

Beseik his lordschip bavar [beware] that my
lord my brother [Lord Home] get na intelligense

THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF THE NOTARY 217

of thir towrnis as he lowfis all owr veillis, for be
God he vill be our greittest enemy.1

(A line or more wanting)

On the same day (August 6) Sprot withdrew a
deposition (made before July 5) that the Unknown,
for whom Letters I, III, V were meant, was the
Laird of Kinfauns, Sir Harry Lindsay, who, in 1603,
tried to shoot Patrick Eviot, one of the Gowrie
fugitives. The Constable of Dundee (Sir James
Scrymgeour) Sprot had also accused falsely. The
Letters (I (?), Ill, Y),he says, were 'imagined by me.'

On August 8, three ministers, Patrick Galloway,
John Hall, and Peter Hewatt, were present. The two
former were now preachers of the courtly party, the
third received a pension of 500 marks from the King,
after the posthumous trial of Logan (1609), at which
the five letters were produced, but this reward may
have been a mere coincidence. The ministers Hall
and Hewatt, in August 1600, had at first, as we saw,
declined to accept James's version of the affair at
Gowrie House (pp. 99-103).

Sprot now confesses that he knows he is to die,
deposes that no man has promised him life, and that
he has stated nothing in hope of life. With tears
he deplores that he has taken God's name in vain, in
swearing to the truth of his depositions before that
of July 5. His last five depositions under examina-
tion are ' true in all points and circumstances, and he
will go to the death with the same.'

1 The peculiarities of spelling are those recognised as Logan's, and
easily imitated by the forger.

218 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

4 Further the said George Sprot remembers that
in the summertide of 1601, the Laird of Bestalrig
had indented with the Lord Willoughby, then
Governor of Berwick, concerning my Lord's ship
then built and lying at Berwick, whereof the Laird
should have been equal partner with my Lord, and
to take voyage with the said ship, either by the
Laird himself, or some other person whom it pleased
him to appoint ... to pass to the Indies, the
Canary s, and through the Straits, for such conditions
as were set down in the indenture betwixt my Lord
and him, which was framed by Sir John Guevara,'
Willoughby 's cousin, the kidnapper of Ashfield in
1599.

Now this ship of Lord Willoughby's, at all events,
was a real ship ; and here is a grain of fact in the
narrative of Sprot. The ship was built by Lord
Willoughby to protect English commerce from the
piracies of the Dunkirkers. On March 28, 1601, he
writes from Berwick to Cecil, ' The respect of my
country and the pity of those hurt by such ' (the
Dunkirkers) ' persuaded me to build a ship, and moves
me now to offer to serve her Majesty at as reasonable
a rate as any ship of 140 tons, with sixteen pieces of
artillery, and 100 men can be maintained with. . . .
If this offer seem good to you and the Council, my
ship shall presently be fitted, if not I purpose to
dispose otherwise of her ' (to Logan), ' being not able
to maintain her.' (' Border Calendar,' ii. 738). On
April 19, Willoughby wrote that he had pursued.

THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF THE NOTAKY 219

with his ship, a pirate which had carried an English
prize into the Forth. But he cannot, unaided, main-
tain the ship, even for one summer. On June 14,
Willoughby 'took a great cold' in his ship, lying
at the haven mouth, awaiting a wind, and died
suddenly. On July 20, Carey says that his body
has been placed, with all honourable rites, on board
his ship.

It appears, then, that Willoughby, unable to main-
tain his ship, and not subsidised by Government, in
the summer of 1601 admitted Logan to a half of the
venture, carrying great expenses. Logan settled the
business at Eobert Jackson's house, in Bridge Street,
Berwick, being accompanied by Sprot, Bower, and
Matthew Logan. Matthew said privately to Sprot,
6 Wae's me that ever I should see this day, that the
Laird should grow a seaman ! I wot not what it
means, for it is for no good, and I fear this shall be
one of the sorrowful blocks that ever the Laird
made. It is true that I have oft thought that the
Laird would pass away, for he is minded to sell all
that he has, and would to God that he had never
been born, what should he do with such conditions,
to go or to send to the sea ? He might have lived
well enough at home. I find he has ever been
carried ' (excited), 6 and his mind has ever been set
on passing out of the country this year past,' that is
since the Gowrie affair.

Now all this tale has much vraisemblance. The
facts about Logan's adventure with Willoughby,

220 THE GOWEIE MYSTERY

stopped by Willoughby's death, were easily verifiable.
Logan, at his death, owned a ship, rated at 500 marks
(so we read in his inventory), but this can hardly have
been the ship of Willoughby. He was restless, excited,
selling land to supply a maritime enterprise.

At this time Lady Restalrig was deeply distressed,
she wished Logan at the Indies, if only he would
first settle Memington on herself. ' If it be God's

c_/

will, I desire never to have a child to him,' she said.
' I have a guess what this mystery means, woe's
me for his motherless children,' that is, children
of former marriages. Later, Lady Eestalrig had a
daughter, Anna, by Logan.

Matthew Logan, as usual, denied every word
attributed to him by Sprot, except regrets for his
own condition. Matthew could do no less to save
his own life.

On August 9, before other witnesses, and the Eev.
Messrs. Galloway, Hall, and Hewatt, Sprot solemnly
confessed to having forged the letters in Logan's
hand (then in possession of his examiners). On
August 10, the same clergymen and many Lords,
and Hart, being present, Sprot came to the point at
last. Where, he was asked, after a prayer offered,
at his request, by Mr. Galloway, was the letter of Logan
to Gowrie, whereon, as model, the rest were forged ?
Now he had not previously mentioned, as far as the
reports go, a letter of Logan to Gowrie, as the model
of his forgeries. He had mentioned, as his model,
the brief harmless letter of Gowrie to Logan. On

THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF THE NOTARY 221

August 9, lie liad been very solemnly told that he

O v t/

was to die, and that he would see the faces of the
Lords of the Council no more. Probably, after they
left him, he told, to a minister or a servant in the
gaol, the fact that he had used, as his model, a letter
from Logan to Gowrie. The result was that he did
again see, on August 10, the Lords of the Council,
who asked him ' where the letter now was.' This
is Letter IV, the letter of Logan to Gowrie, of July 29,
1600. Sprot, in place of answering directly, cited
from memory, and erroneously, the opening of the
letter. He had read it, while it was still unfinished,
in July 1600, at Fastcastle. Logan, who had been
writing it, was called by Bower, went out, and thrust
it between a bench and the wall : there Sprot found,
read, and restored the unfinished epistle to its place.
But the letter is dated ' from Gunnisgreen,' at the
conclusion. Logan, according to Sprot, left Gunnis-
green one day at the end of July, 1600, or beginning
of August, thence rode to Fastcastle, and thence,
next day, to Edinburgh (p. 190).

Now Logan, in the letter (IV), says that he took
two days to write it. One day would be at Fastcastle,
when he was interrupted ; the other, the day of dating,
at Gunnisgreen. This, however, does not tally with
Sprot's account (p. 190) of Logan's movements (Nine
Wells, Gunnisgreen, Fastcastle, Edinburgh), if these
are the days of writing Letter IV. Yet, if Sprot
forged Letter IV, he knew where he dated it from ; 1

1 He had not the letter before him at this moment, and may have
forgotten.

222 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

if the Government had it forged, they knew, from
Sprot's confession, that it should have been dated
from Fastcastle. Perhaps we should not bear too
heavily on this point. A man may mention the
wrong name by inadvertence, or the clerk, by in-
advertence, may write the wrong name. Mr. Mark
Napier in his essay on this matter twice or thrice
prints ' Logan ' for c Sprot,' or ' Sprot ' for c Logan.' 1
6 Fastcastle,' in Sprot's confession, may be a slip of
tongue or pen for ' Gunnisgreen,' or he may have
been confused among the movements to and from
Gunnisgreen and Fastcastle. The present writer finds
similar errors in the manuscript of this work.

Sprot next alleged that, three months after the
Gowrie affair, Logan bade Bower hunt among his
papers for this very letter. He had been at Berwick,
with Lord Willoughby, and Bower told Sprot that he
was ' taking order ' with all who knew of his part in
the Gowrie plot. Here is the old difficulty. Why
was the letter kept for one moment after Bower
brought it back ? Why leave it with Bower for
three months ? At all events, as Bower could not
read, Sprot helped him to look for the letter, found
it, and kept it ' till he framed three new letters
upon it,' after which he does not say what he did
with it.

Here Sprot cited, from memory, but not accu-
rately, more of Letter IV. The existence of such
errors is not remarkable. Sprot again swore to the

1 Spottiswoode, vol. iii. pp. 274, 282.

THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF THE NOTAEY 223

truth of all his depositions since July 5. But if this
story is true, how can it be true that Logan was at
ease in his mind, after burning the letter from Alex-
ander Euthven, and another from Father Andrew
Clerk, Jesuit, as Sprot previously swore ? There was
still Letter IV, lost, unburned, a haunting fear. It
may be suggested that Sprot only kept this letter ' tilV
he had made his forgeries on its model, and then, in a
later search, pretended to find and returned it, having
first copied it out in Logan's hand ; that copy being
our Letter IV. Sprot first would make a copy, in
his ordinary hand, of the letter, then restore the
original, and, after Logan's death, copy his copy, in
imitation of Logan's hand, and frame I, III, V, and
the torn letter on his copy of IV. Finally, Sprot
said that ' he believes this letter is in his chest among
his writings, because he left it there when he was
taken by Watty Doig and deposes that it is closed and
folded within a piece of paper.' Sprot said this on
August 10. On August 12 he was hanged. Now
was this letter, on which he forged three others,
found ' in his kist,' before his death ? That it was so
found, we have direct evidence, though not from the
best of sources.

In the year 1713, an aged nobleman. Lord
Cromarty, published a defence of the King's con-
duct in the Gowrie affair. Lord Cromarty, in 1713,
was aged eighty-three. Born about 1630, he re-
membered the beginnings of the Civil War, and says
that the Covenanters, about 1640-1645, made great

224 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

political capital out of King James's alleged guilt in
the slaughter of the Euthvens. Later, Lord Cromarty
occupied, in the Eestoration, the highest judicial
offices, and, as Clerk Eegistrar, had access to public
documents. He was an old courtier, he may have
been forgetful, he may have been unscrupulous, but,
as to the letter in Sprot's kist, he writes ' the letter
was found there by the Sheriff Depute, who was
ordered by Sir William Hart, Lord Justice of Scot-
land, to seize the said chest, and make search for
this letter, which he found, and delivered to the
King's Advocate, Sir Thomas Hamilton.' l

Now this Sir Thomas Hamilton was the ancestor
of the Earl of Haddington, who inherits many of his
papers. Among these we find a copy, in Sprot's
' course hand,' or rapid current hand, of Letter IV,
and another of Letter I, but no such copies of II,
III, and V. Each of these is endorsed by James
Primrose, Clerk of Council, is endorsed by Sprot, in
faded ink, and is also endorsed in Sprot's ordinary
everyday hand, very firm and clear, thus :

'This is copyitt off the principal' (the original),
' lykeas the note writtin upon the bak is writtin by
me, George Sprott.'

There is, in fact, another c note on the back,' in
ink more faded, on a dirty rubbed part of the paper.

Now certainly the last endorsation was writt en by
Sprot either on August 11 or August 12, 1600. He
had not the original or this copy by him on

1 Cromarty, An Historical Account, &c., 92 (1713).

THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF THE NOTARY 225

August 10, or on August 11 when examined, for on
August 10 he could only give a version of Letter IY
from memory, and erroneously, the version cited in
his indictment. On August 11 he still had not the
original or his copy, for he quoted from memory,
what he believed to be a postscript to the original
Letter IV, a passage which is really in the text of
Letter IV. He could not have made this error if,
at that hour of August 11, he had either the original
of Letter IV, or his exact copy before him, nor
would there have been any reason why he should
quote from memory, if Government had the docu-
ments. Yet he re-endorsed his copies of Letters I and
IV before his death. This endorsement is firm and
clear, the text of the two copies is fainter and much
of the paper more rubbed, as if from being kept in
the pocket. The copies are older than the final
endorsement on the copies. It follows that the
Sheriff Depute found these two copies (I, IV) and
the originals, in Sprot's kist, and brought them to
Sprot's examiners after that hour of August 11, when
he could only quote from memory. He then endorsed
them formally, one of the last acts of his life.

The originals were also found, for it will not be
argued that Government employed another forger
to forge them from Sprot's copies in c course hand.'
We know that Sprot had a secondary species of
blackmailing documents, these in current hand ; one
of them he gave to the Goodman of Eentoun. For
this, or some other purpose, he had made the

226 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

4 course hand ' copies of Letters I and IV, which
he endorsed just before his death, or perhaps he
made them from the original, which he then de-
stroyed or surreptitiously returned. When he was
examined on August 11, the three preachers, Gallo-
way, Hall, and Hewatt, and the minister of Dudding-
ston, Mr. Lumisden, were present. He was entreated
not to perjure himself to the injury of innocent
people, dead or alive, 'by making and forging of lies.'
He renewed his protestations of truth, asked Mr.
Galloway to pray for him, wept, and repeated his
averments.

On August 12 Sprot was tried and hanged at
Edinburgh. He renewed his protestations from
every corner of the scaffold, in the most vigorous
language. Abbot, who was present, declares that
he thrice gave a loud clap with his hands while he
swung, as a proof that he adhered in death to his
last words. A similar story is told of Kirkcaldy of
Grange, and I think in other cases. Nothing of the
sort is in the first draft of the official account of his
dying behaviour (a draft manifestly drawn up near
the spot), nor in the official account itself.

Much value was set on dying confessions. When
the preacher, Eobert Bruce, refused to believe the
King's account of the Gowrie tragedy, he said that
one proof would satisfy him. Let Andrew Hender-
son, the man in the turret, be hanged. If he per-
sisted in his confession on the scaffold, Mr. Bruce
would believe. The King declined to make this

THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF THE NOTARY 227

abominable experiment. In Sprot's case his dying
confession did not move the Kirk party. Calder-
wood hints that Mr. Galloway 6 had the most
speech to Sprot on the scaffold,' and so kept him
true to a dying lie.1 He adds that Spottiswoode
said to Galloway ' I am afraid this man make us all
ashamed,' that is, by retracting his confessions.
Mr. Patrick answered, ' Let alone, my Lord, I shall
warrant him.' 2 Had Andrew Henderson swung,
constant to his confession, the Presbyterian sceptics
would have found similar reasons for disbelief.

What are we to believe? Did Sprot go wherever
he went with a blasphemous lie in his mouth ? A
motive for such vehemence of religious hypocrisy
is difficult to find. Conceivably he had promise
of benefits to his family. Conceivably he was an
atheist, and ' took God in his own hand.' Conceiv-
ably his artistic temperament induced him to act his
lie well, as he had a lie to act.

Yet all this is not satisfactory.

Let us take the unromantic view of common
sense. It is this : Logan was a restless, disappointed
intriguer and debauchee. He sold his lands, some to
acquire a partnership with Lord Willoughby in a
vessel trading to America ; this vessel, or another, is
among his assets recorded in his inventory. All his
lands he sold — not that he was in debt, he was a large

1 Calderwood, vi. 780.

2 In the Auchendrane case (1615), the public, partisans of the
murderers, wished the only witness to be hanged, just to see if he would
persevere in his confession.

228 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

lender — for purposes of profligacy. These proceed-
ings gave rise to gossip. The Laird must be selling
his lands to evade forfeiture. He must have been
engaged in the Gowrie mystery. Then Logan dies
(July 1606). Bower is also dead (January 1606).
It occurs to Sprot that there is money in all this,
and, having lost Logan's business, the hungry Sprot
needs money. He therefore makes a pact with some
of Logan's debtors. He, for pay, will clear them of
their debts to Logan's executors, whom he will
enable them to blackmail. Logan's descendants by
two marriages were finally his heirs, with Anna, a
minor, daughter of his last wife, who had hoped to
have no children by him, the free-spoken Lady
Eestalrig, nee Ker (Marion). They, of course, were
robbed, by Logan's forfeiture, of 33,000 marks, owed
to Logan by Dunbar and Balmerino. Meanwhile,
just after Logan's death, in autumn 1606, Sprot
forges Letters I, II, III, IV, V, and the torn
letter, with two compromising letters to Bower, two
to Ninian Chirnside, and an ' eik,' or addition, of
compromising items to a memorandum on business,
which, in September 1605, Logan gave to Bower
and John Bell before he started for London and
Paris. All these documents, the plot-letters, I, II,
III, IV, V, and the rest (which lie before me), are
mere instruments of blackmail, intended to terrorise
the guardians of the Logans.

So far, all is clear. But, in April 1608, Sprot
has blabbed and is arrested. The forgeries are found

THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF THE NOTARY 229

among his papers, or given up by Chirnside. Sprot
confesses to the plot, to Logan's share of it, and to
the authenticity of the letters and papers. He is then
tortured, recants his confession, and avows the forgery
of the papers. The Government is disappointed. In
July, Dunbar comes down from town, treats Sprot
leniently, and gives him medical attendance. Sprot
now confesses to his genuine knowledge of the plot,
but unflinchingly maintains that all the papers so far
produced are forgeries, based on facts.

Why does he do this ? He has a better chance
of pardon, if he returns to the statement that they
are genuine. If they are, the Government, which he
must propitiate, has a far stronger hand, for the
forgeries then defied detection. However, for no con-
ceivable reason, unless it be either conscience or
the vanity of the artist, Sprot now insists on claim-
ing the letters as his own handiwork. On this point
he was inaccessible to temptation, if temptation was
offered. If he lies as to Letter II having been dic-
tated by Logan, he lies by way of relapse into the
habit of a lifetime, and so on other points. He keeps
back all mention of Letter IV, till the last ember of
hope of life is extinct.

It has not been hitherto known, either that Sprot
kept back Letter IV till almost his dying day, or that
he then, at last, revealed it. Lord Cromarty's aver-
ment that it was found in Sprot's kist was disbelieved.
It is true, however, and now we ask, why did Sprot
keep back Letter IV to the last, and why, having so

230 THE GOWRIE MYSTEKY

long concealed it, did he say where it was, after all
hope of life was over ?

The answer can only be conjectural. Some might
guess thus : till Letter IV was confessed to and
found, Government had not received from Sprot one
scrap of documentary evidence that could be used
against Logan's heirs. Scoundrel as he was, Spvot
could not guess that the Privy Council would use
papers which were confessed forgeries to save Dunbar
and Balmerino from paying some 33,000 marks to
Logan's executors. The wretched Sprot had robbed
the orphans on a small scale, but he would not, by
producing the genuine Logan letter, enable the Lords
to ruin them utterly. Bad as he was, the Laird had
been kind to Sprot. Therefore he kept back, and by
many a lie concealed, his real pieces of evidence,
Letter IV, and 1, if I is genuine. So far he acted

on a remnant of natural conscience.

But Sprot, alas, had a religious conscience. He
had a soul to be saved. The preachers had prayed
with him. When death was but forty-eight hours
distant, he feared to die with a lie in his mouth. So
now, at last, he spoke of Letter IV as his real model.
Perhaps he hoped that it would not be found, and
probably it was in some secret drawer or false bottom

of his kist. It was found, and was used, alono* with

the confessed forgeries (which even Sprot could not
have anticipated), to destroy the inheritance of the
children, at Logan's posthumous trial in 1609.

But the obvious reply to this hypothesis is, that

THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF THE NOTARY 231

Letter IV, by the evidence of modern experts (evi-
dence unanimous and irresistible), is just as much
forged as all the rest, is just as certainly in Sprot's
imitation of Logan's handwriting. This being so,
why did Sprot keep it back so long, and why,
having kept it back, did he, almost in his last hour,
produce it, and say (if he did) that it was genuine,
and his model, as it certainly was ? This is the last
enigma of Sprot. His motives defy my poor efforts
to decipher them. Even if the substance of IV is
genuine, what were Sprot's motives ? I do no-t feel
assured that Sprot really maintained the genuineness
of the handwriting of Letter IV. His remark that he
kept Logan's letter only till he forged others on it, as
a model, certainly implies that he did not keep it after
he had done his forgeries, and therefore that our
Letter IV is, confessedly, not Logan's original. Cer-
tainly it is not.

232 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

XVI
WHAT IS LETTER IV ?

THE crucial question now arises, What is Letter IV?
If it be genuine (in substance), then, whatever the
details of the Gowrie Conspiracy may have been, a
conspiracy there was. This can only be denied by
ignorance. If the enterprise fails, says the author of
Letter IV, the plotters will lose their lives, their lands
and houses will be ' wrecked,' their very names will
be extirpated ; and, in fact, James did threaten to
extirpate the name of Euthven. The letter delibe-
rately means High Treason. The objection of Calder-
wood, and of all the Euthven apologists, that Sprot
confessed to having forged all the letters, we have
shown to rest on lack of information. He said, at
last, that he had forged many papers (some did not
appear in Court in 1609), and that he forged three
letters on the model of Letter IV. These three letters
may either be I, III, and V ; or III, V, and the torn
letter. The case of Letter I is peculiar. Though it
contains much that is in Letter IV, and might
have been taken from it, the repetitions need not
imply copying from Letter IV. Byron and others
would say the same things, on the same day, to two

WHAT IS LETTER IV? 233

or three correspondents. Letter IV is subsequent, as
dated, to Letter I, and Logan might say to the Un-
known, on July 18, what, after the announced inter-
val of ten days, he said to Gowrie. Letter I contains
this remark on the nature of the plot : ' It is not far
by ' (not unlike) ' that form, with the like stratagem,
whereof we had conference in Cap. h,' which may be
Capheaton, on the English side of the Border. Pro-
bably Logan often discussed ingenious ways of catching
the King : new plots were hatched about once a
month, as Cecil's and the other correspondence of
the age abundantly proves. The plot (the letter says)
is like that in a Paduan story of a nobleman. The
rest of the letter is identical with the matter of III,

IV, and V. We cannot be sure whether Letter I
is one of the three forged on IV or not.

One thing is certain, Letters III and V, to the
Unknown, are modelled on IV, as is the torn letter.
Sprot said this was the case, and every reader of III,

V, and the torn letter (given above) must see that he
tells the truth. These letters contain no invention at
all, they merely repeat Letter IV. Any man who
could invent IV had genius enough to alter his tunes
in III, V, and the torn letter. But Sprot never
deserts his model. This is an argument for the
authenticity in substance of Letter IV. The other
three contain nothing that is not in Letter IV, and
everything that is in it, except what is personal to
Gowrie, and would be inappropriate if addressed to the
Unknown (I, III, V), or to Chirnside (torn letter).

234 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

There is (1) the mention of a Paduan adventure,
the basis of the plot, a thing that Sprat is very un-
likely to have invented. With all my admiration
for Sprot, I do think that the Paduan touch is beyond
him. This occurs in Letter IV, 'the good sport
that M.A., your lordship's brother, told me of a noble-
man in Padua. It is a parasteur ' ( ? a propos) ' to this
purpose we have in hand.' This appears in Letter I,
' reckless toys of Padua,' and in Letter V, ' bid M. A.
remember on the sport he told me of Padua.'

2. The constant applause of Bower. This is in
Letter IV, and in I, III, Y, and the torn letter.

3. Meeting with Alexander Euthven. This is in
IV, and in I and V.

4. The meeting at Fastcastle, which is to be quiet
and well-provisioned. This is in IV, and in I, III, V.

5. Lord Home and Mr. Ehynd are to know nothing.
This is in IV, and in I, and V, and the torn letter,
utterly needless repetition.

6. The King's hunting, the opportunity for the
plot. This is in IV, and in I, but that is natural.

7. Directions as to returning the letters. These
are in IV, in I, III, V, and the torn letter.

8. Injunctions of secrecy. These are in IV, and
I, III, V, and in the torn letter.

9. Logan will be true, 'although the scaffold
were already set up.' This is a phrase of Letter IV,
and recurs in Letter III and in the torn letter.

10. Logan's elevation of heart on receipt of
Gowrie's letter. This occurs in IV and in V.

WHAT IS LETTER IV? 235

Who can doubt that Letter IV is the source,
followed servilely by the forger, of the torn letter
and I (?), Ill, V ? If Sprot could invent the substance
of IV, why was he so chary of invention in all the
other letters ?

It is clear, moreover, that the Unknown himself
is derived from a line in Letter IV : 'I have
already sent another letter to the gentleman your
Lordship knows, as the bearer will inform you of his
answer.' The bearer is always Bower, so the c gentle-
man ' is to be conceived as in Gowrie's neighbour-
hood, or on the route thither, as one bearer serves
both for Gowrie and ' the gentleman. Therefore,
before July 5, Sprot (who had no idea as to who
the gentleman was) identified the ' gentleman,' the
Unknown of I, III, V, with the laird of Kinfauns,
near Perth, or with the Constable of Dundee ; but he
withdrew these imputations, craving the pardon of
the accused.

Thus it stands to reason that I (?), Ill, V, and
the torn letter are forged on the model of IV. Sprot
introduces no novelties in I, III, V, or the torn
epistle. He harps eternally on the strings of IV.
The only variation is (V) the mention of ' one other
man with you,' in the proposed sail to Fastcastle.

It is not easy for criticism to evade the conclu-
sion that I (?), Ill, V, and the torn letter are, indeed,
forgeries modelled on IV. And what is IV ?

Is Letter IV in substance genuine ? If not, why
did Sprot keep it back till the rope was noosed for

236 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

his neck ? A guess at his possible reasons for so
keeping it back (as the only real documentary evi-
dence extant against the orphans of Logan) we have
given, but this fails if Letter IV was a forgery : as
in handwriting it was.

Then there are the contents of Letter IV. To
myself, and to Mr. Anderson, it does not seem
probable, it seems hardly credible, that Sprot could
have invented the contents of Letter IV. If he did,
his power of rendering character might have been
envied by the author of the Waverley Novels. In IV
Logan is painted, the ' main loose man, but a good
fellow,' with a master hand. The thing is freely,
largely, and spontaneously executed. What espe-
cially moves me to think IV no invention, is the
reference to the Paduan incident or romance, ' the
good sport that Mr. Alexander told me of the noble-
man of Padua, it is a propos to the purpose we have
in hand.' This is casually inserted in the last words
of the postscript, not blazoned in the text, as in the
forgeries confessedly modelled on this letter. The
whole tone of the letter is in keeping with the
alleged author's temperament. It is respectful, but
far from servile. Gowrie is a great Earl, but Logan
is of an old and good name. There is the genial
sensualism of the man, with his promise of wine and
' a fine hattit kit ' (a kind of syllabub). There is the
joyous forward glance at an anniversary dinner, with
Both well, to which the King's hunting of this year shall
furnish the dainty cheer ; ' hoc jocose ! ' At this dinner

WHAT IS LETTER IV ? 237

Bothwell and Gowrie, old allies, are to meet at
Logan's board, which may suggest that Bothwell
and Gowrie are still working together.

The contempt for Lord Home as a conspirator —
' in good faith he will never help his friend or harm
his foe ' — and the praises of Bower, are characteristic,
and, here, are in place ; elsewhere they are idle repe-
titions, mere copies. The apology for bad writing —
Logan could not employ a secretary in this case — is
natural : the two days writing agrees with Sprot's
evidence. (P. 221.)

Could Sprot have invented all this : and, in
his confessed forgeries, failed to invent anything ?
Would not the fertility of his genius have hurried
him into fresh developments, and characteristic
details, appropriate to the imaginary correspondent
whom he addresses ? These considerations may seem
a mere leaning on ' internal evidence,' and ' literary
instinct,' broken reeds. But the case is buttressed
by the long and, on any theory, purposeless reten-
tion of Letter IV, the secrecy concerning it, and the
confession, so obviously true, that Letter IV is the
source and model of the forgeries. These facts have
hitherto been unknown to writers who believed
the whole correspondence to be a forgery done for
the Government.

Both Mr. Anderson (who has greatly aided me by
his acuteness and learned experience of old MSS.)
and myself disbelieve that Logan's hand wrote Letter
IV. The matter, the contents of Letter IV, may be

238 THE GOWKIE MYSTERY

Logan's, but the existing document may be ' a Sprot
after Logan.' Sprot may have reinserted the genuine
Logan IV among Bower's collection of papers, pre-
tended to find it, and returned it to Logan, after
copying it in Logans hand. Or he may have copied
it in his ' course hand ' (the copy in the Haddington
MSS.), and later, in autumn 1606, after Logan's
death, have rewritten his copy in an imitation of
Logan's hand. The contents, Mr. Anderson believes,
as I do, are, none the less, genuine Logan.

If readers accept these conclusions, there was a
Gowrie conspiracy, and Logan was in it. CI trow
your Lordship has a proof of my constancy already
ere now,' he says in Letter IV, and Gowrie may
have had a proof, in his early conspiracies of 1593-
1594, or in a testimonial to Logan from Bothwell,
Gowrie's old ally.

But, if readers do not accept our conclusions,
they may still rest, perhaps, on the arguments
adduced in the earlier chapters of this essay, to
demonstrate that neither accident nor the machina-
tions of the King, but an enterprise of their own,
caused the Slaughter of the Euthvens. The infamous
conduct of the Privy Council in 1608-1609 does not
prove that, in 1600, the King carried out a conspiracy
in itself impossible.

I have found nothing tending to show that King
James was ever made aware of Sprot's confessions of
forgery. It is true that Sir William Hart, the Lord
Justice, went to Court after Sprot's death, and, in

WHAT IS LETTER IV ? 239

September, the Scottish Privy Council asked James
to send him home again.1 But Hart need not have
told all the truth to James.

There is a kind of rejoicing naivete in all of
James's references to the Gowrie affair, which seems
to me hardly consistent with his disbelief in his
own prowess on that occasion. If one may con-
jecture, one would guess that the Privy Council
and the four preachers managed to persuade them-
selves, Sprot being the liar whom we know, that
he lied when he called his Logan papers forgeries.
The real facts may have been concealed from the
King. Mr. Gunton, the Librarian at Hatfield, in-
forms me that, had he not seen Letter IY (which he
is sure was written by Sprot), he does not think he
should have suspected the genuineness of Letters II
and III, after comparing them with the undoubted
letters of Logan in the Cecil manuscripts. The
Government and the four preachers, with such
documents in their hands, documents still apt to
delude, may easily have brought themselves to dis-
believe Sprot's assertion that they were all forgeries.
Let us hope that they did !

1 Melrose Papers, vol. i. pp. 72, 73.

240 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

XVII
INFERENCES AS TO THE CASKET LETTERS

THE affair of Sprot has an obvious bearing on that
other mystery, the authenticity of the Casket Letters
attributed to Queen Mary. As we know, she, though
accused, was never allowed to see the letters alleged
to be hers. We know that, in December 1568,
these documents were laid before an assembly of
English nobles at Hampton Court. They were
compared, for orthography and handwriting, with
genuine letters written by the Queen to Elizabeth,
and Cecil tells us that ' no difference was found.' It
was a rapid examination, by many persons, on a brief
winter day, partly occupied by other business. If
experts existed, we are not informed that they were
present. The Casket Letters have disappeared since
the death of the elder Gowrie, in 1584. From him,
Elizabeth had vainly sought to purchase them. They
were indispensable, said Bowes, her ambassador, to
' the secrecy of the cause.' Gowrie would not be
tempted, and it is not improbable that he carried
so valuable a treasure with him, when, in April 1584,
he retired to Dundee, to escape by sea if the Angus
conspiracy failed.

INFERENCES AS TO THE CASKET LETTERS 241

At Dundee lie was captured, after defending the
house in which he was residing. That house was
pulled down recently ; nothing was discovered. But
fable runs that, at the destruction of another ancient
house in Dundee, ' Lady Wark's Stairs,' a packet of
old letters in French was found in a hiding hole
contrived within a chimney. The letters were not
examined by any competent person, and nobody
knows what became of them. Eomance relates that
they were the Casket Letters, entrusted by Gowrie
to a friend. It is equally probable that he yielded
them to the King, when he procured his remission
for the Eaid of Euthven. In any case, they are lost.

Consequently we cannot compare the Casket
Letters with genuine letters by Mary. On the other
hand, as I chanced to notice that genuine letters of
Logan's exist at Hatfield, I was enabled, by the kind-
ness of the Marquis of Salisbury, and of Sir Stair
Agnew, to have both the Hatfield Logan letters, and
the alleged Logan letters produced in 1609, photo-
graphed and compared, at Hatfield and at the General
Eegister House in Edinburgh. By good fortune, the
Earl of Haddington also possesses (what we could not
expect to find in the case of the Casket Letters) docu-
ments in the ordinary handwriting of George Sprot,
the confessed forger of the plot-letters attributed
to Logan. The result of comparison has been to
convince Mr. Gunton at Hatfield, Mr. Anderson in
Edinburgh, Professor Hume Brown, and other
gentlemen of experience, that Sprot forged all the

242 THE COWRIE MYSTERY

plot-letters. Their reasons for holding this opinion
entirely satisfy me, and have been drawn up by Mr.
Anderson, in a convincing report. To put the matter
briefly, the forged letters present the marked peculi-
arities of Logan's orthography, noted by the witnesses
in 1609. But they also contain many peculiarities
of spelling which are not Logan's, but are Sprot's.
The very dotting of the ' i's ' is Sprot's, not Logan's.
The long ' s ' of Logan is heavily and clumsily
imitated. There is a distinct set of peculiarities
never found in Logan's undisputed letters : in Sprot's
own letters always found. The hand is more rapid
and flowing than that of Logan. Not being myself
familiar with the Scottish handwriting of the period,
my own opinion is of no weight, but I conceive that
the general effect of Logan's hand, in 1586, is not
precisely like that of the plot-letters.

My point, however, is that, in 1609, Sprot's
forgeries were clever enough to baffle witnesses of un-
blemished honour, very familiar with the genuine
handwriting of Logan. The Eev. Alexander Watson,
minister of the Kirk of Coldinghame (where Logan
was wont to attend), alleged that ' the character of
every letter resembles perfectly Eobert's handwrit,
every way' The spelling, which was peculiar, was also
Logan's as a rule. Mr. Watson produced three genuine
letters by Logan, before the Lords of the Articles
(who were very sceptical), and satisfied them that the
plot-letters were the laird's. Mr. Alexander Smith,
minister of Chirnside, was tutor to Logan's younger

INFERENCES AS TO THE CASKET LETTERS 243

children ; he gave identical evidence. Sir John
Arnott, Provost of Edinburgh, a man of distinction
and eminence, produced four genuine letters by the
Laird, c agreeing perfectly in spelling and character
with the plot-letters. The sheriff clerk of Berwick,
William Home, in Aytoun Mill (a guest, I think, at
Logan's ' great Yules '), and John Home, notary in
Eyemouth, coincided. The minister of Aytoun, Mr.
William Hogg, produced a letter of Logan to the
Laird of Aytoun, but was not absolutely so certain
as the other witnesses. ' He thinks them ' (the plot-
letters) ' like [to be] his writing, and that the same
appear to be very like his write, by the conformity
of letters and spelling.' 1

Thus, at the examination of Logan's real and
forged letters, as at the examination of Queen Mary's
real and Casket letters, in spelling and handwriting
' no difference was found.' Yet the plot-letters were
all forged, and Mr. Anderson shows that, though
4 no difference was found, many differences existed.
Logan had a better chance of acquittal than Mary.
The Lords of the Articles, writes Sir Thomas Hamilton
to the King (June 21, 1609), 'had preconceived hard
opinions of Eestalrig's process.' Yet they were
convinced by the evidence of the witnesses, and by
their own eves.

«/

From the error of the Lords of the Articles, in
1609, it obviously follows that the English Lords, at
Hampton Court, in 1568, may have been unable to

1 Pitcairn, ii. 289-290. 2 Ibid. ii. 292.

E 2

244 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

detect proofs of forgery in the Casket Letters, which,
if the Casket Letters could now be compared with
those of Mary, would be at once discovered by
modern experts. In short, the evidence as to Mary's
handwriting, even if as unanimously accepted, by
the English Lords, as Cecil declares, is not worth a
fc hardhead,' a debased copper Scottish coin. It is
worth no more than the opinion of the Lords of the
Articles in the case of the letters attributed to
Eestalrig.

245

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

THE FRONTISPIECE

Gowrie's Arms and Ambitions

THE frontispiece of this volume is copied from the design
of the Earl of Gowrie's arms, in what is called ' Work-
man's MS.,' at the Lyon's office in Edinburgh. The
shield displays, within the royal treasure, the arms of
Euthven in the first and fourth, those of Cameron and
Halyburton in the second and third quarters. The
supporters are, dexter, a Goat ; sinister, a Earn ; the crest
is a Eam's head. The motto is not given ; it was DEID
SCHAW. The shield is blotted by transverse strokes of the
pen, the whole rude design having been made for the
purpose of being thus scored out, after Gowrie's death,
posthumous trial and forfeiture, in 1600.

On the left of the sinister supporter is an armed man,
in the Gowrie livery. His left hand grasps his sword-
hilt, his right is raised to an imperial crown, hanging
above him in the air ; from his lips issue the words, TIBI
SOLI, ' for thee alone.' Sir James Balfour Paul, Lyon,
informs me that he knows no other case of such additional
supporter, or whatever the figure ought to be called.

This figure does not occur on any known Euthven seal.
It is not on that of the first Earl of Gowrie, affixed to a
deed of February 1583-1584. It is not on a seal used

246 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

in 1597, by John, third Earl, given in Henry Laing's
' Catalogue of Scottish Seals' (vol. i. under 'Ruthven').
But, in Crawford's ' Peerage of Scotland ' (1716), p. 166,
the writer gives the arms of the third Earl (John, the
victim of August 5, 1600). In place of the traditional
Scottish motto Deid Schaiv, is the Latin translation, Facta
Probant. The writer says (Note C), ' This from an
authentic copy of his arms, richly illuminated in the year
1597, with his name and titles, viz. " Joannes Ruthven,
Comes de Gowry, Doniinus de Ruthven," &c., in my
hands.'

In 1597, as the archives of the Faculty of Law, in the
University of Padua, show, Gowrie was a student of
Padua. It is also probable that, in 1597, he attained his
majority. He certainly had his arms richly illuminated,
and he added to his ancestral bearings what Crawfurd
describes thus : ' On the dexter a chivaleer, garnish'd with
the Earl's coat of arms, pointing with a sivord upward
to an imperial crown, with this device, TIBI SOLI.'

In Workman's MS., the figure points to the crown with
the open right hand, and the left hand is on the sword-
hilt. The illuminated copy of 1597, once in the possession
of Crawfurd, must be the more authentic; the figure here
points the sword at a crown, which is Tibi Soli, Tor
thee ' (Gowrie ?) ' alone.'

Now on no known Ruthven seal, as we saw, does this
figure appear, not even on a seal of Gowrie himself, used
in 1597. Thus it is perhaps not too daring to suppose
that Gowrie, when in Italy in 1597, added this emblematic
figure to his ancestral bearings. What does the figure
symbolise ?

On this point we have a very curious piece of evidence.
On June 22, 1609, Ottavio Baldi wrote, from Venice, to
James, now King of England. His letter was forwarded
by Sir Henry Wotton. Baldi says that he has received
from Sir Robert Douglas, and is sending to the King by

APPENDICES 247

his nephew — a Cambridge student — ' a strange relique out
of this country.' He obtained it thus : Sir Eobert Douglas,
while at home in Scotland, had ' heard speech ' of ' a
certain emblem or impresa,' left by Gowrie in Padua.
Meeting a Scot in Padua, Douglas asked where this emblem
now was, and he was directed to the school of a teacher
of dancing. There the emblem hung, * among other
devices and remembrances of his scholars.' Douglas had
a copy of the emblem made ; and immediately ' acquainted
me with the quality of the thing,' says Baldi. ' We agreed
together, that it should be fit, if possible, to obtain the
very original itself, and to leave in the room thereof the
copy that he had already taken, which he did effect by
well handling the matter.

' Thus hath your Majesty now a view, in umbra, of
those detestable thoughts which afterwards appeared in
facto, according to the said Earl's own mot. For what
other sense or allusion can the reaching at a crown with a
sword in a stretched posture, and the impersonating of his
device in a blackamore, yield to any intelligent and honest
beholder ? ' l

From Baldi's letter we learn that, in the device left by
Gowrie at Padua, the figure pointing a sword at the crown
was a negro, thus varying from the figure in Workman's
MS., and that in the illuminated copy emblazoned in
1597, and possessed in 1716 by Crawfurd. Next, we learn
that Sir Eobert Douglas had heard talk of this emblem in
Scotland, before he left for Italy. Lastly, a mot on the
subject by the Earl himself was reported, to the effect that
the device set forth ' in a shadow,' what was intended to
be executed ' in very deed.'

Now how could Sir Eobert Douglas, in Scotland, hear
talk of what had been done and said years ago by Gowrie
in Padua ? Sir Eobert Douglas was descended from

1 State Papers, Venice, E.G., No. 14, 1608-10. Hill Burton,
History of Scotland, vol. vi. pp. 135, 136. Note. Edition of 1870.

248 THE GOWIJIE MYSTERY

Archibald Douglas of Glenbervie (ob. 1570), who was
ancestor of the Catholic Earl of Angus (flor. 1596). This
Archibald of Glenbervie had a son, Archibald, named in
his father's testament, but otherwise unknown.1 Rather
senior to Gowrie at the University of Padua, and in the
same faculty of law, was an Archibald Douglas. He may
have been a kinsman of Sir Robert Douglas, himself of the
Glenbervie family, and from him Sir Robert, while still in
Scotland, may have heard of Gowrie's device, left by him
at Padua, and of his mot about in umbra and in facto.
But, even if these two Douglases were not akin, or did
not meet, still Keith, Lindsay, and Ker of Newbattle, all
contemporaries of Gowrie at Padua, might bring home the
report of Gowrie's enigmatic device, and of his mot there-
anent. Had the emblem been part of the regular arms of
Ruthven, Sir Robert Douglas, and every Scot of quality,
would have known all about it, and seen no mystery in it.

It will scarcely be denied that the assumption by
Gowrie of the figure in his livery, pointing a sword at the
crown, and exclaiming ' For Thee Only,' does suggest that
wildly ambitious notions were in the young man's mind.
What other sense can the emblem bear ? How can such
ideas be explained ?

In an anonymous and dateless MS. cited in ' The Life
of John Earl of Gowrie,' by the Rev. John Scott of Perth
(1818), it is alleged that Elizabeth, in April 1600, granted
to Gowrie, then in London, the guard and honours appro-
priate to a Prince of Wales. The same Mr. Scott suggests
a Royal pedigree for Gowrie. His mother, wife of
William, first Earl, was Dorothea Stewart, described in a
list of Scottish nobles (1592) as 'sister of umquhile Lord
Methven.' Now Henry Stewart, Lord Methven (' Lord
Muffin,' as Henry VIII used to call him), was the third
husband of the sister of Henry VIII, Margaret Tudor, wife,

This information I owe to Mr. Anderson, with the reference to
Crawford, and other details.

APPENDICES 249

first of James IV, then of the Earl of Angus (by whom
she had Margaret, Countess of Lennox, and grandmother
of James VI), then of Lord Methven. Now if Margaret
Tudor had issue by Henry Stewart, Lord Methven, and if
that issue was Dorothea, mother of John, third Earl of
Gowrie, or was Dorothea's father or mother, that Earl was
Elizabeth's cousin. Now Burnet, touching on the Gowrie
mystery, says that his own father had ' taken great pains
to inquire into that matter, and did always believe it was a
real conspiracy. . . . Upon the King's death, Gowrie stood
next to the succession of the crown of England,' namely,
as descended from Margaret Tudor by Henry (Burnet says
1 Francis ' !), Lord Methven. Margaret and Methven, says
Burnet, had a son, ' made Lord Methven by James V. In
the patent he is called frater noster uterinus ' — ' Our
brother uterine.' l He had only a daughter, who was
mother or grandmother to the Earl of Gowrie, so that by
this he might be glad to put the King out of the way, that
so he might stand next to the succession of the crown of
England.' * If this were true, the meaning of Gowrie's
device would be flagrantly conspicuous. But where is that
patent of James V ? Burnet conceivably speaks of it on the
information of his father, who ' took great pains to inquire
into the particulars of that matter,' so that he could tell
his son, 'one thing which none of the historians have
taken any notice of,' namely, our Gowrie's Tudor descent,
and his claims (failing James and his issue) to the crown
of England. Now Burnet's father was almost a contem-
porary of the Gowrie affair. Of the preachers of that
period, the King's enemies, Burnet's father knew Mr.
Davidson (ob. 1603) and Mr. Eobert Bruce, and had listened
to their prophecies. ' He told me,' says Burnet, ' of many
of their predictions that he himself heard them throw
out, which had no effect.' Davidson was an old man in

1 Burnet's History of his Own Time, vol. i. pp. 24, 25, mdccxxv.

250 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

1600 ; Bruce, for bis disbelief in James's account of tbe
conspiracy, was suspended in that year, though he lived
till 1631, and, doubtless, prophesied in select circles. Mr.
Bruce long lay concealed in the house of Burnet's great-
grandmother, daughter of Sir John Arnot, a witness in the
trial of Logan of Restalrig. Thus Burnet's father had
every means of knowing the belief of the contemporaries
of Gowrie, and he may conceivably be Burnet's source
for the tale of Gowrie's Tudor descent and Eoyal claims.
They were almost or rather quite baseless, but they
were current.

In fact, Dorothea Stewart, mother of Gowrie, was cer-
tainly a daughter of Henry Stewart, Lord Methven, and of
Janet Stewart, of the House of Atholl. We find no trace
of issue born to Margaret Tudor by her third husband,
Lord Methven. Yet Gowrie's emblem, adopted by him at
Padua in 1597, and his device left in the Paduan dancing
school, do distinctly point to some wild idea of his that
some crown or other was ' for him alone.' At the trial of
Gowrie's father, in 1584, we find mention of his ' chal-
lenginge that honor to be of his Hignes blud,' but that
must refer to the relationship of the Euthvens and the
King through the Angus branch of the Douglases.1

This question as to the meaning of Gowrie's emblem
came rather early into the controversy. William Sander-
son, in 1656, published Lives of Mary and of James YI ; he
says : * I have a manuscript which relates that, in Padua,
the Earl of Gowrie, among other irnpressa (sic) in a
fencing school, caused to be painted, for his devise, a hand
and sword aiming at a crown.' 2 Mr. Scott, in 1818,
replied that the device, with the Kuthven arms, ' is en-
graven on a stone taken from Gowrie House in Perth, and
preserved in the house of Freeland ' (a Euthven house).
There is also, I have been told, a seal with the same

Papers relating to William, first Earl of Gowrie, p. 30.
(Privately printed, 1867.) 2 Sanderson, p. 226.

APPENDICES 251

engraving upon it, which probably had been used by the
Earls of Gowrie and by their predecessors, the Lords of
Kuthven.'1 But we know of no such seal among Gowrie or
Euthven seals, nor do we know the date of the engraving
on stone cited by Mr. Scott. In his opinion the armed
man and crown might be an addition granted by James III
to William, first Lord Euthven, in 1487-88. Euthven
took the part of the unhappy King, who was mysteriously
slain near Bannockburn. Mr. Scott then guesses that this
addition of 1488 implied that the armed man pointed his
sword at the crown, and exclaimed Tibi Soli, meaning
' For Thee, 0 James III alone, not for thy rebellious
son,' James IV. It may be so, but we have no evidence
for the use of the emblem before 1597. Moreover, in
Gowrie's arms, in Workman's MS., the sword is sheathed.
Again, the emblem at Padua showed a ' black-a-more,' or
negro, and Sir Eobert Douglas could not but have recog-
nised that the device was only part of the ancestral
Euthven arms, if that was the case. The ' black-a-more '
was horrifying to Ottavio Baldi, as implying a dark
intention.

Here we leave the additional and certainly curious
mystery of Gowrie's claims, as ' shadowed ' in his chosen
emblem. I know not if it be germane to the matter to add
that after Bothwell, in 1593, had seized James, by the aid
of our Gowrie's mother and sister, he uttered a singular
hint to Toby Matthew, Dean of Durham. He intruded
himself on the horrified Dean, hot from his successful raid,
described with much humour the kidnapping of the un-
trussed monarch, and let it be understood that he was
under the protection of Elizabeth, that there was a secret
candidate for James's crown, and that he expected to be
himself Lieutenant of the realm of Scotland. Bothwell
was closely lie with Lady Gowrie (Dorothea Stewart), and
our Gowrie presently joined him in a ' band ' to serve
Elizabeth and subdue James.2

1 Scott, pp. 282, 284. 2 Border Calendar, vol. i. p. 491.

252 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

APPENDIX B

THE CONTEMPORARY RUTHVEN VINDICATION

(State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. Ixvi. No. 52)

The verie maner of the Erll of Gowrie
and his brother their death, quha war killit
at Perth the fyft of August by the kingis
servanttis his Matie being present.

Vpone thurisday the last of July

Perth from Strebrane

bene ahunting accompainit wtb

purpose to have ridden to

mother. Bot he had no sooner

.... aspersauit fyn

vpone such

addressit thame selffis

thay continewit daylie

Amangis the rest Doctor Herries . . . Satirday the first

of August feinying himself to . . of purpose to ....

and my lordis house. This man be my Lord was w . . .

and convoyit throche . . the house and the secreit pairts

schawin him.

Vpon tysday my [lordis ?] servanttis vnderstanding that my

[lord ?] was to ryde to Lot [Lothian] obteinit licence

to go . . thair effairis and to prepare thameselfis. Whylk

my lord wold [not] have grantit to thame if they . . . any

treason in ...

The same day Mr. Alexander being send for be the

king . . tymes befoir, raid to facland accompaneit wth

APPENDICES 253

Andro Kuthven and Andro Hendirson, of mynd not to have
returnit . . . bot to have met his brother my lord the next
morning at the watter syde. And Andro Hendirsonis
confessioun testifeit this . . tuke his ludgeing in facland
for this nygt.

At his cuming to facland he learnit that his Matie was
a huntting, quhair eftir brekfast he addrest him self. And
eftir conference w* his Matie, he directit Andro Hendirsone
to ryd befoir, and schaw my lord [that] the king wald come
to Perth [for ?] quhat occasion he knew not, and desyrit
him to haist becaus he knew my lord vnforsene and
vnprovydit for his cuming.

The kingis Matie eftir this resolution raid to Perth
accompaneit wtb thrie score horse quhair (?) threttie
come a lytle before him remainit ....

My lord being at dennar Andro Hendirsone cwmes
and sayis to his Lordship that the kingis Matie was cum-

mand. My lord . . quhat his Matie his hienes was.

The vther ansuris Then my Lord caused

discover the tabel and directit his Officeris [inconti-
nent ?] to go to the towne to seik prouision for his Mateis
dennare. His Lordship's self accompaneit w" fower men (?)

twa onlie war his awin servanttis went to the

south . . of Perth to meit his Matie quhair in presence of
all the company his Matie kyssit my lord at meitting.

When his Matie enterit in my lordis house his Maties
awin porteris resavit the keyis of the gaitt . . ylk thay
keipit quh . . . murther was endit.

His Mateis self commandit to haist the dennare w* all
expedition becaus he was hungrie eftir huntting quhilk . . .
.... the schort warning and suddentlie dispaschit. His
Mateis sendis Mr. Alexander to call Sir Thomas Erskyne
and Jon Eamsay to folow him to the challmer, quhair his
Matie, Sir Thomas Erskyne, Jon Eamsay, Doctor Hereis,
and Mr. Wilsone being convenit slew [Mr. Alexr] and threw
him down the stair, how and for quhat cause .... thame

254 THE COWRIE MYSTERY

selfis, and no doubt wald reveill if thay war was als

straytlie toyit in the . . men kingis servanttis

cummes to the at dennare in the hall the

saying my lordis will ye calling

for horse at his Matics . . . suddaine departure

.... and callit for his horse and stayit not ....
past out to the streit qr abyding his horse he hearis His
Matie call on him out at the chalmer window niy Lord
of Gowrie traittoris hes murtherit yor brother alreddie
and . . ye suffir me to be murtherit also. My Lord
hering yis niakis to the yait (?) quhair himself was . . in
and Mr. Thomas Cranstoun that thrust in before him,
the rest was excludit by violence of the kingis servanttis
and cumpany quha . . . the hous and yett. My lord
being in at the yett and entering in the turnpyck to pass
vp to his Matie he fand his brother thrawin down y? stairs
dead. And when he came to the chalmer dure M1'.
Thomas Cranstoun being before him was stricken throw
the body twyse and drawin bak be my lord, quha enterit
in the chalmer calling if the king was alyve, bot the . . .
quhylk was in the chalmer . . . him w* stroke of sworde,
bot being unable to ovircum him, and some of thame
woundit, they promisit him to lat him see the king alyve
according to his desyre, and in the meantyme he croceing
his two swordis was be Jon Ramsay strok throw ye body,
and falling wtj the stroke recommendit his saule to God,
protesting before his heavinlie Matie that he deit his trew
subiect and the kingis. And this far is certanely knawin
& collectit pairtly be the trew affirmacione of sum quha
war present of the kingis awin folkis and last of all be the
deposicionnis of M1'. Thomas Cranstoun, George Craigingelt,
and J. (?) Barroun, quha eftir grevous & intolerable
torturis tuke it vponn thair saluaciun & damnatioun that
they never knew the Earle of Gowrie to carie any evill
mynd to the kyng lat be to intend treasoun against him,
bot rather wald die w1 that that the Earle of Gowrie his

APPENDICES 255

brother and thay thame selfis deit innocent :

Hendersone if he be put to the lyke tryall .... bot he
will confess that he was servind the Lordis al . . . in the
hall quhen the Mr was murtherit and quhen the kingis
[servant?] broght the newis that his Matie was away &
fra that I hear .... that he was sene till the king
causit him to come vponn promeis that his lyfe and
landis suld be saif, for quhat cause the effect will ....
As for the buke of Necromancie whiche was alledgit to
have bene deprehendit on my lord it (?) was proposeit to
the earles pedagog Mr. Wr Eind (?), quha schawis that
he knew my lord to have ane memoriall buik quhairin he
wreat all the notable thingis he learned in his absence,
ather be sicht or hearing, bot as for any buik of Necro-
mancie nor his medling wl necromanceis he never knew
thereof.

It may be my gude Lord governo1' that the maner of
the earle of Gowrie and his brotheris death befoir writtin
be so far frorne yor honoure in mynd that yt (?) may move
farther doubtes to aryse theryn. The cause hereof I
vnderstand is pairtlie the difference of the last report
frome the reporttis preceidding in that it determines na
thing concerning the cause of his Maties sending for the

Mr of Gowrie nor concerning. . . . speiches and

and in the chalmer. . . . pairtlie becaus prevaile

or speik against his Matie albeit thay kowe

.... some thair be that corse. . . apat (?) to his Matie3
sayingis that thay will swear thame all albeit thair con-
sciences persuade thame of [the] contrair. Sua it is hard
for yor Lordship to be resoluit be reporttis. Bot if it will
pleas yor Lordship to be acquent w* the causis and inci-
dentis preceidding this dolorous effect, I hoip yor Lord-
ship wilbe the rnair easilie persuadit of the treuth. And
first of all the evill mynd careit be my lord. . . . Colonel (?)
Stewart and his privie complaint & informacioune to his
Matie thair anent.

256 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

Secondlie the opposition laid (?) be my lord himself in
the Conventioun and be the barronnis, as is thocht be his
instigacioun, against (?) his Matie.

Thirdlie the great haitrent and envy of the courtieris in
particularis, quha had persavit him to be ane great staye
of thair coninioditie, and sa be fals reportis and calumneis
did go about to kendle and incense his Maties wrath against
him privilie.

And fourtlie the over great expectatioune the Kirk
and cuntrie had of him wl ane singular lowe preceding yr
fra and vther causis qlk is not neidfull to be exprest. All
these causis makis the kingis pairt to be deadlie suspected
be those quha knawis thame to be of veritie.

As for my lordis pairt if yor Lordship knew how weill
he was trainit be Mr Eobert Eollok ane of the godliest
men in Scotland at scoolis, and quhat testificatioun of gude
inclinacioun and behaviour he had ressauit fra him yor
honor wald hardlie beleue him a traito1'.

Secondlie if yor Lordship knew w* quhat accompt and
good opinioun of all gude men he passit sobirlie and quyetlie
out of his. . . . how wiselie and godlie he behauit him self
in all natiounis quhairsoever he come, how he sufferit in

Eome itself. . . . for the treuth of his religion as

I am sure he. ... be suspect to be a traittor.

Thirdlie to quhat end suld my lord of Gourie have
maid hes leving frie, brocht hame furniture and orna-
menttis for his hous and payit all his. . . fatheris debtis
and setlit himself to be a gude iusticiar in his awin landis
as is notoriouslie knawin gif w'in the space of twa
monethis haveing scairslie. . . . countrie he suld resolue

to & murther his Prince be. . . cause and sa to

quyt his countrie his leving his welth his. ... & lyfe,
lat be the ruitting out of his name & posteritie for evir.

APPENDICES 257

APPENDIX C

FIVE LETTERS FORGED BY SPROT, AS FROM LOGAN

[Preserved in the General Register House, Edinburgh]

(1) Robert Logan of Eestalrig to . . . .

Rycht Honorabill Sir, — My dewty with servise remem-
bred. Pleise yow onderstand, my Lo. of Gowry and some
vtheris his Lo. frendis and veill villeris, qha tendaris his
Lo. better preferment, ar vpon the resolucion ye knaw,
for the revenge of that cawse ; and his Lo. hes vrettin to
me anent that purpose, qhairto I vill accorde, incase ye vill
stand to and beir a part : and befoir ye resolve, meet me
and M.A.E. in the Cannogat on Tysday the nixt owk, and
be als var as ye kan. Indeid M.A.R. spak with me fowr
or fywe dayis syn, and I hew promised his Lo. ane answar
within ten dayis at farrest. As for the purpose how
M.A.R. and I hes sett down the cowrse, it vill be ane very
esy done twrne, and nocht far by that forme, vith the lyke
stratagem, qhairof ve had conference in Cap. h. Bot incase
ye and M.A.R. forgader, becawse he is someqhat consety, for
Godis saik be very var vith his raklese toyis of Padoa : For
he tald me ane of the strangest taillis of ane nobill man of
Padoa that ever I hard in my lyf, resembling the lyk purpose.
I pray yow, Sir, think nathing althocht this berare onder-
stand of it, for he is the special secretair of my lyf ; His
name is Lard Bower, and vas aid Manderstonis man for
deid and lyf, and evin so now for me. And for my awin
part, he sail knaw of all that I do in this varld, so lang as

258 THE GOWEIE MYSTERY

ve leif togidder, for I mak him my howsehald man : He is
veill vorthy of credit, and I recommend him to yow.
Alvyse to the purpose, I think best for our plat that ve
meet all at my house of Fastcastell ; for I hew concludit
with M.A.R. how I think it sail be meittest to be convoyit
quyetest in ane bote, be sey ; at qhilk tyrne vpon swre
adwartisment I sail hew the place very quyet and veill
provydit ; and as I receve yowr answer I vill post this
berair to my Lo. and therfoir I pray yow. as ye luf yowr
awin lyf, becawse it is nocht ane matter of mowise, be
circumspect in all thingis, and tak na feir bot all sail be
veill. I hew na vill that ather my brother or yit M.W.R.
niy Lo. aid pedagog knaw ony thing of the matter, qhill
all be done that ve vald hew done ; and thane I cair nocht
qha get vit, that lufis vs. Qhen ye hew red, send this my
letter bak agane vith the berar, that I may se it brunt
my self, for sa is the fasson in sic errandis ; and if ye
please, vryyt our (?) answer on the bak herof, incase ye vill
tak my vord for the credit of the berair : and vse all ex-
pedicioun, for the twrne vald nocht be lang delayit. Ye
knaw the kingis hwnting vill be schortly, and than sail be
best tyme, as M.A.R. has asswred me, that my Lo. has
resolved to interpryse that matter. Lwking for yowr
answer, conimittis yow to Chrystis haly protectioun.
Frome Fastcastell, the awchtan day of July 1600.

(Sic subscribitur) Yowris to vtter power redy

RESTALRIGB.

On the back ' Sprott,' ' bookit ' (2).

(2) Robert Logan of Eestalrig to Laird Bower.

Lard Bower, — I pray yow hast yow hast to me abowt
the erand I tald yow, and ve sail confer at lenth of all
thingis. I hew recevit an new letter fra my Lo(rd) of
Go(wrie) concerning the purpose that M.A. his Lo. brothir
spak to me befoir, and I perseif I may hew avantage of

APPENDICES 259

Dirleton, incase his other matter tak effect, as ve hope it
sail. Alvayse I beseik yow be at me the morne at evin, for
I hew asswred his lo. servand, that I sail send yow over the
vatter vithin thre dayis, vith an full resolucion of all my
vill, anent all purposes ; As I sail indeid recommend yow
and yowr trustiness till his lo. as ye sail find an honest
recompense for yowr panes in the end. I cair nocht for
all the land I hew in this kingdome, incase I get an grip
of Dirleton, for I estem it the plesantest dwelling in
Scotland. For Goddis cawse, keip all thingis very secret,
that my lo. my brothir get na knawlege of owr purposes,
for I (wald ?) rather be eirdit quik. And swa Iwking for
yow, I rest till meitting. Fra the Kannogait, the xviij day
of July.

(Sic subscribitur) Yowris to power redy

EESTALBIGE.

I am verie ill at eise and thairfoir speid yow hither.
On the back ' Sprott,' ' Secund,' < bookit.'

(3) Robert Logan of Restalrig to. . . .

Eycht honorable Sir, — All my hartly duty vith humbill
servise remembred. Sen I hew takin on hand to inter -
pryse vith my lo(rd) of Go(wrie) yowr speciall and only best
belowed, as ve hew set down the plat alredy, I vill
request yow that ye vill be very circumspek and vyse, that
na man may get ane avantage of vs. I dowt nocht bot
ye knaw the perell to be bayth lyf , land and honowr, incase
the mater be nocht vyslie vsed : And for my avin part,
I sail hew an speciall respek to my promise that I hew maid
till his Lo. and M.A. his lo(rdschipis) brother, althocht
the skafald var set vp. If I kan nocht vin to Fakland the
first nycht, I sail be tymelie in SL Johnestoun on the
morne. Indeid I lipnit for my lo(rd) himself or ellise
M.A. his lo. brother at my howse of Fast(castell) as I vret
to them bayth. Alwyse I repose on yowr advertysment of

260 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

the precyse day, vith credit to the berar : for howbeit he
be bot ane silly aid gleyd carle, I vill answer for him that
he sail be very trew. I pray yow, sir, reid and ather
bwrne or send agane vith the berare ; for I dar haserd my
lyf and all I hew ellise in the varld on his message, I hew
sik pruif of his constant trewth. Sa committis yow to
Chrystis holy protectioun. Frome the Kannogait the xxvij
day of July 1600.
(Sic subscribitur)

Yowris till all power v* humbill servise redy

EESTALRIGE.

I vse nocht to vryt on the bak of ony of my letteris
concerning this errand.

On the back ' Sprott,' ' bookit ' (3).

(4) Robert Logan of Restalrig to the Earl of Gowrie.

My Lo. — My rnaist humbill dewtie vith servise in maist
hartly maner remernbred. At the resset of yowr lo(rd-
schipis] letter I am so comforted, especially at your Lo :
purpose communicated onto me thairin, that I kan nather
vtter my joy nor find myself habill how to enconter yowr
lo. vith dew thankis. Indeid my lo. at my being last in the
town M.A. your lo. brother imperted somqhat of yowr
lo(rdschipis) intentioun anent that matter onto me ; and if I
had nocht bene busyed abowt sum turnis of my avin, I thoght
till hew cummit over to S. Jo. and spokin vith your lo(rd-
schip). Yit alvayse my lo. I beseik your lo. bayth for the
saifty of yowr honowr, credit and mair nor that, yowr lyf,
my lyf, and the lyfis of rnony otheris qha may perhapis
innocently smart for that turne eftirwartis, incase it be
reveilled be ony ; and lykvyse, the vtter vraking of our
landis and howsis, and extirpating of owr names, Iwke that
ve be all alse sure as yowr lo. and I myself sail be for my
avin part, and than I dowt nocht, bot vith Godis g(race) we

APPENDICES 261

sail bring our matter till ane fine, qhilk sail bring con-
tentment to vs all that ever vissed for the revenge of the
Maschevalent massakering of our deirest frendis. I dowt
nocht bot M.A. yowr lo. brother hes informed yowr lo.
qhat cowrse I laid down, to bring all your lo(rdschipis)
associatis to my howse of Fast(castell) be sey, qhair I suld
hew all materiallis in reddyness for thair saif recayving a
land, and into my howse ; making as it ver bot a maner
of passing time, in ane bote on the sey, in this fair somer
tyde ; and nane other strangeris to hant my howse, qhill
ve had concluded on the laying of owr plat, quhilk is
alredy devysed be M.A. and me. And I vald viss that
yowr lo. wald ather come or send M.A. to me, and thareftir
I sowld meit yowr lo. in Leith, or quyetly in Eestal(rig)
qhair ve sowld hew prepared ane fyne hattit kit, vfc succar,
comfeitis, and vyn ; and thereftir confer on matteris. And
the soner ve broght owr purpose to pass it ver the better,
before harwest. Let nocht M.W.E. yowr awld pedagog ken
of your comrning, bot rather vald I, if I durst be so bald,
to intreit yowr lo. anis to come and se my avin howse,
qhair I hew keipit my lo(rd) Bo(thwell) in his gretest ex-
tremityis, say the King and his consell qhat they vald.
And incase God grant vs ane hapy swccess in this errand,
I hope baith to haif yowr lo. and his lo., vith mony otheris
of yowr loveries and his, at ane gude dyner, before I dy.
Alvyse I hope that the K(ingis) bwk hunting at Falkland,
this yeir, sail prepair sum daynty cheir for ws, agan that
dinner the nixt yeir. Hoc jocose, till animat yowr lo. at
this tyme ; bot eftirvartis, ve sail hew better occasion to
mak mery. I protest, my lo. before God, I viss nathing
vith a better hart, nor to atchive to that qhilk yowr lo. vald
fane atteyn onto ; and my continewall prayer sail tend to
that effect ; and vith the large spending of my landis gudis,
yea the haserd of my lyf, sail not afray me fra that,
althocht the skaffold var alredy sett vp, befoir I sowld
falsify my promise to yowr lo. and perswade yowr lo(rd-

262 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

schip) therof. I trow yowr lo. lies ane pruife of my con-
stancy alredy or now. Bot my lo. qharas your lo. desyris
in yowr letter, that I craif rny lo. my brotheris mynd anent
this matter, I alvterly disasent fra that that he sowld ever
be ane counsalowr therto ; for in gude fayth, he vill newer
help his frend nor harrne his fo. Yowr lo. may confyde
mair in this aid man, the beirer heir of, my man La(ird)
Bowr, nor in my brother ; for I lippin my lyf and all I
hew ells in his handis ; and I trow he vald nocht spair to
ryde to Hellis yet to plesour me ; and he is nocht begylit
of my pairt to him. Alvjse, my lo. qhen yowr lo. hes red
my letter, delyver it to the berair agane, that I ma}r se it
brunt vith my awin ein ; as I hew sent yowr Lo : letter to
yowr Lo. agane ; for so is the fassone I grant. And I pray
yowr lo. rest fully perswaded of me and all that I hew
prornesed ; for I am resolved, howbeit it ver to dy the
rnorne. I man intreit yowr lo. to expede Bowr, and gif
him strait directioun, on payn of his lyf, that he tak never
ane vink sleip, qhill he se me agane ; or ellise he vill
vtterly vndo vs. I hew alredy sent an other letter to the
gentill man yowr lo. kennis, as the berare vill informe yowr
lo. of his answer and forvardness vith yowr lo. ; and I sail
schaw yowr lo. forder, at meting, qhen and qhair yowr lo.
sail think meittest. To qhilk tyrne and ever committis
yowr lo. to the proteccioun of the Almychtie God. From
Gwnisgrene, the twenty nynt of Julij 1600.

(Sic subscribitur) Your lo. awin sworne and bundman

to obey and serve vt efauld and ever redy seruise

to his vttir power till his lyfis end.

RESTALRIGE.

Prayis yowr lo. hald me excused for my vnsemly
letter, qhilk is nocht sa veil vrettin as mister var : For
I durst nocht let ony of my vryteris ken of it, but tuke
twa syndry ydill dayis to it my self.

I vill never foryet the gude sporte that M.A. yowr lo:

APPENDICES 263

brother tald me of ane nobill man of Padoa, it comiss sa
oft to my memory. And indeid it is a parastevr to this
purpose ve hew in hand.

On the back ' Sprott,' ' bookit ' (4).

(5) Robert Logan of Restalrig to

Rycht honor abill Sir, — My hartly dewty remembred. Ye
knaw I tald yow at owr last meitting in the Cannogat that
M.A.K. my lo. of Go(wries) brother had spokin vith me,
anent the matter of owr conclusion ; and for my awin part
I sail nocht be hindmest ; and sensyne I gat ane letter
from his lo. selff, for that same purpose ; and apon the
resset tharof , onderstanding his lo. frankness and fordvard-
ness in it, God kennis if my hart vas nocht liftit ten
stagess ! I postit this same berare till his lo. to qhome ye
may concredit ail yowr hart in that asveill as I ; for and it
var my very sowl, I durst mak him messinger therof, I
hew sic experiense of his treuth in mony other thingis :
He is ane silly aid gleyd carle, hot vender honest : And as
he hes reportit to me his lo. awin answer, I think all
matteris sail be concluded at my howse of Fa(stcastell) ;
for I and M.A.R. conclude that ye sowld come vith him and
his lo. and only ane other man vith yow, being bot only fowr
in company, intill ane of the gret fisching botis, be sey to
my howse, qher ye sail land as saifly as on Leyth schoir ;
and the howse agane his lo. comming to be quyet : And
qhen ye ar abowt half a rnyll fra schoir, as it ver passing
by the howse, to gar set forth ane vaf. Bot for Godis
sek, let nether ony knawlege come to my lo. my brotheris
eiris, nor yit to M.W.R. my lo. aid pedagog ; for my
brother is kittill to scho behind, and dar nocht interpryse,
for feir ; and the other vill disswade vs fra owr purpose
vith ressonis of religion, qhilk I can newer abyd. I think
thar is nane of a nobill hart, or caryis ane stomak vorth
an pini, bot they vald be glad to se ane contented revenge

264 THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

of Gray Steillis deid : And the sorter the better, or ellse ve
may be marrit and frustrat ; and therfor, pray his lo(rd-
schip) be qwik and bid M.A. remember on the sport he tald
me of Padoa ; for I think vith my self that the cogitacion on
that sowld stimulat his lo(rdschip). And for Godis cawse
vse all yowr cowrses cum discrecione. Fell nocht, sir,
to send bak agan this letter ; for M.A. leirit me that
fasson, that I may se it distroyed my self. Sa till your
comming, and ever, committis yow hartely to Chrystis holy
protection. From Gwnisgrene, the last of July 1600.

On the back 'xiij Aprilis 1608 producit be Ninian
Chirnesyde (8).'

Also ' Sprott,' ' Fyft. bookit.'

INDEX

ABBOT, Dr. George, present when
Sprot was hanged, 177, 226 ;
his pamphlet containing official
account of Sprot's trial and ex-
aminations, 178

Abercromby, Eobert (the King's
saddler), said to have brought
James to Perth to ' take order
for his debt,' 83, 84, 159

Agnew, Sir Stair, cited, 241

Analysis of Letter IV, 232-239

Anderson, Eev. Mr., finds the
torn letter from Logan to
Chirnside, 174 ; on Letter IV.,
236, 237, 238; on the Logan
plot-letters, 241, 242, 243

Angus, Earl of, involves Gowrie's
father in a conspiracy with !
him, 121, 122 ; under the spells
of witchcraft, 198, 199

Anne of Denmark, Queen (wife
of James VI), her attributed
relations with the Earl Moray,
2; and with Gowrie and the
Master of Euthven, 3, 133, 134,
138 ; romantic story of her
ribbon on the Master's neck,
132 ; invites Gowrie to Court,
133, 134 ; sorrow for the slay-
ing of the Euthvens, 5, 133,
138; plots against the Earl of
Mar, 138, 139

Arms, Gowrie's, 245 et seq.

Arnott, Sir John (provost of Edin-
burgh), on the Logan plot-
letters, 243 ; at the trial of
Logan, 250

Arran (Capt. James Stewart), his

influence over James, 119 ; his
treachery to Gowrie's father,
120-123 ; receives that noble-
man's forfeited estate, 123 ;
driven into retirement, 123

Arran, Earl of, Bothwell's (James
Hepburn) proposal to him to
seize Mary, cited, 71

Ashfield, kidnapped by Lord Wil-
loughby, cited, 139

Atholl, Earl of ^married to Gow-
rie's sister Mary), 123 ; in
alliance with Bothwell and
Gowrie against James, 125 ;
manifesto to the Kirk, 125 ;
letters from James, 134, 135

Auchmuty, John, in attendance
on James, 12

BAILLIE, John, of Littlegill, im-
plicated by Sprot with Logan,
202, 203 ; denies receiving a
letter from Logan, 209

Baldi, Ottavio, his letter to James
on the Gowrie emblem at
Padua, 246, 247, 251

Balgonie. See Graham of Bal-
gonie.

Barbe, Mr. Louis, on Henderson's
and the Master's ride to Falk-
land, 45 ; his view of the notary
Eobertson's evidence respect-
ing Henderson, 61 note ; as to
the theory of an accidental
brawl, 94 ; on James and the
pot of gold tale, 95 ; on Bruce's
interrogation of the King, 109 ;

266

THE GOWIttE MYSTERY

on the invitation from the King
to Gowrie, Atholl, and others to
join him at Falkland, 135

Baron (Gowrie's retainer), in the
chamber fight, 87 ; hanged, 87

Bell, John, Logan's memorandum
to him, 174, 195

Beza, Gowrie with, at Geneva, 130

Bisset, Mr., quoted, on the notary
Kobertson's evidence respecting
Henderson, 61 note

Bothwell, Francis Stewart Earl
of, aided by Gowrie's mother
and sister captures James at
Holyrood, 124, 125 ; manifesto
to the Kirk, 125 ; his list of
Scottish Catholic nobles ready
for the invasion of Scotland,
128 ; other proposals of inva-
sion, 129 ; vague hints at his
aim to change the dynasty,
140; his whereabouts in 1600,
147 note ; on terms with Logan
of Bestahig, 154, 155, 156 ;
charged with practising witch-
craft against the King's life,
198 ; report as to a secret can-
didate for James's crown, 251

Bothwell, James Hepburn Earl
of, his proposal to Arran to
seize Mary, cited, 71

Bower, James (a retainer of
Logan's), custodian of com-
promising letters between Lo-
gan and Gowrie, 164, 174, 176,
177, 195 ; bearer of Gowrie's
letter to Logan, 183, 188, 191 ;
letter from Logan, 183, 184;
Sprot's account of Logan and
Bower's scheme to get posses-
sion of Dirleton, 189 ; with
Logan at Coldiugharne after
the tragedy, 195 ; custodian of
Ruthven's and Clerk's letters
to Logan, 202 ; blamed for the
selling of Fastcastle, 204 ; letter
from Logan reproaching him for
indiscretions of speech, 211, 212

Bower, Valentine, employed by
his father James to read Logan's
letters, 213

Bowes, Sir William (English

Ambassador), no friend of
James's, 96 ; his hypothesis
respecting the Gowrie tragedy,
96 ; letter to Sir John Stanhope
on same matter, 97 note

Brown, Professor Hume, on the
Logan plot-letters, 241

Brown, Robert (James's servant),
part in the Gowrie mystery. 31

Bruce, Rev. Robert (Presbyterian
minister), his cross-examina-
tion of James on the Gowrie
tragedy, 38 ; allows that James
was not a conspirator, 95 ; ex-
plains to James the reasons
for the preachers' refusal to
thank God for his delivery
from a ' plot,' 101 ; sceptical
of the veracity of James's nar-
rative, 102, 103 ; will believe it
if Henderson is hanged, 103,
104, 106, 226 ; goes into banish-
ment, 105 ; tells Mar in Lon-
don he is content to abide by
the verdict in the Gowrie case,
but is not persuaded of Gowrie's
guilt, 105 ; meets the King in
Scotland, and tells him he is
convinced, on Mar's oath, that
he is innocent, 106 ; inter-
rogates the King, 107 ; refuses
to make a public apology in
the pulpit and is banished to
Inverness, 108, 250 ; his ' Medi-
tations,' 110 note ; asks Lord
Hamilton to head the party of
the Kirk, 177 ; prophecies, 249

Burnet (Burnet's father), on the
Gowrie mystery, 249, 250

Burnet, Bishop, quoted, on
Gowrie's claims to a Royal
pedigree, 249, 250

Burton, Dr. Hill, on James VI,
5 ; on Logan's plot-letters, 169

CALDERWOOD, Rev. David (Pres-
byterian minister), on James's
narrative of the Gowrie affair,
36, 37 ; on the man in the
turret, 62 ; rejects the story of
Craigengelt's dying confession,

INDEX

267

104 ; view of the objections
taken by sceptics to the King's
narrative, 111 ; on Gowrie's entry
to Edinburgh, 130 ; on the con-
fession of Sprot on the scaffold,
168, 164 note, 227; his inter-
pretation of Sprot's confession,
164 ; on the Logan plot-letters,
170, 172, 173

Cant, Mr. (antiquary), on Gowrie
House, 18

Carey, Sir John (Governor of
Berwick), respecting a treatise
in vindication of the Euthvens,
81 ; informs Cecil of James's
jealousy of Gowrie, 130 ; and
of the Court tattle respecting
the Queen and Gowrie, 133

Casket Letters, the, cited, 5,7,8;
in possession of Gowrie's father,
240 ; disappearance of, 241 ;
probability of forgery, 244

Cecil Papers at Hatfield, the, 158

Cecil, Sir Eobert, Queen Eliza-
beth's minister, 11 ; communi-
cation from Nicholson respecting
Craiistoun and Henderson, 75
note ; letter from Carey respect-
ing a treatise in vindication of
the Euthvens, 81 ; intrigue with
Bothwell, 147 note ; with Border
Scots intriguing against James,
159, 160; Lord Willoughby's
offer of a ship if subsidised, 218

Chirnside, Ixinian, of Whitsum-
laws, 154 ; Logan's letter to
him, 174 ; relations with Logan,
197, 199; employed by Both-
well to arrange meetings with
the wizard Graham, 198, 199 ;
in danger after the failure of
the Gowrie plot, 203 ; Sprot's
forged letter of Logan's to be
used by him for blackmailing
Logan's executors, 215

Christie, porter at Gowrie House
on the fatal day, 21

Clerk, Father Andrew (Jesuit), in-
triguing against James, 201, 212

Coat of arms, Gowrie's, 245 etseq.

Colville, John, tells Cecil of
Gowrie's summons to be leader

of the Kirk, 129 ; schemes
against James, 140, 146, 155 ;
renounces Frank Bothwell, 198

Corsar, John, cited, 211

Cowper, Eev. Mr. (minister of
Perth), on Gowrie's views as to
secrecy in plots, 144

Craigengelt (Gowrie's steward),
his evidence regarding the
Master's ride to Falkland, 44;
observation of the Master while
the King dines, 49 ; at the
dinner, 65, 83, 84 ; his con-
fession before execution, 103,
104 ; denial of receipt of letters
from James to Gowrie, 134,

135 note ; on the movements of
the Gowries before the tragedy,

136 ; hanged, 87
Cranstoun of Cranstoun, Sir

John, 154

Cranstoun Bidden, Laird of,
(Logan's father-in-law), 153

Cranstoun, Thomas (Gowrie's
equerry), his share in the
transactions at Gowrie House
which brought about the
slaughter of the Euthvens, 20,
21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31;
wounded by Earnsay, 74, 85 ;
examined, tortured, tried, and
hanged at Perth, 74, 87, 155 ;
an outlawed rebel and adherent
of Bothwell, 74 note, 155

Cranstoun, Win. (Bothwellian),155

Crockett, Willie, one of Sprot's
victims, 203 ; his account of
Logan's Yule at Gunnisgreen,
209

Cromarty, Lord, his defence of
James in the Gowrie affair,
223 ; testifies to the finding of
Sprot's Letter IV, 224, 229

DAVIDSON, Eev. M., cited, 249
Dirleton, Gowrie's stronghold near

North Berwick, 42, 43, 145
Doig, Watty, arrests Sprot, 162
Douglas, Archibald, the infamous

traitor, 140 ; his intimacy with

Logan, 154, 155, 157

268

THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

Douglas, Archibald, of Glenbervie,
248

Douglas, Archibald (son of
Douglas of Glenbervie), student
at Padua, 126, 248

Douglas of Spot, 140, 156

Douglas, Sir Robert, and the
Gowrie emblem in Padua, 127,
246, 247, 248, 251

Drumniond of Inchaffray, at
Gowrie House when the Ruth-
vens were killed, 19, 24, 43;
letter from James, 134, 135

Dunbar, Earl of, his humane
treatment of Sprot, 163, 170;
Sprot's confession forwarded to
him, 182 ; in debt to Logan, 211

Dunfermline, Earl of, and the
preachers, 102 ; opposes James's
demands for money, 131 ; pre-
sent at Sprot's examinations,
201, 210

EASTER WEMYSS, Laird of, op-
poses James's demands for
monej7, 131

Elizabeth, Queen, 11 ; receives,
through Preston, James's ac-
count of the Gowrie affair, 96 ;
seeks to purchase the Casket
Letters from Gowrie's father,
240; said to have granted to
Gowrie the guard and honours
of a Prince of Wales, 248

Elphinstone (Lord Balmerino),
Secretary of the Privy Council,
in receipt of James's narrative
of the Gowrie plot, 38 ; denies
discrepancies alleged by the
preachers in the report of the
tragedy, 102

Erskine, Sir Thomas, his share in
the Gowrie slaughter, 19, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30, 31, 51, 59, 74, 85, 139

Erskine (Sir Thomas's brother),
his part in the tragedy, 26, 27,
28, 29

Essex, Earl of, 11, 105

Eviot, Patrick, present at the
fight in the death chamber, 29,
30, 60 ; proclaimed, 63

FALKLAND Castle, 5, 12

Fastcastle, Berwickshire, the
stronghold of Logan, where it
is said James was to have been
lodged, 153, 154, 193, 194

Fyvie, President of the Privy
Council. See Dunfermline.

GALLOWAY, Rev. Patrick (the
King's chaplain), his account
of the doors passed through and
locked by the Master on the
way to the turret, 53 ; proclaims
Henderson as the man in the
turret, 63 ; alleges that Gowrie
attempted to involve James in
negotiations with the Pope, 104,
128 ; reported to have induced
Henderson to pretend to be
the man in the turret, 114 ; at
Sprot's examination, 186. 217,
220, 226

Galloway, William, one of Sprot's
victims, 203

Gardiner, Mr. S. R. (historian), on
the Gowrie mystery, 5

Gibson (Scottish judge), kidnap-
ping of, 145

Goodman, the, of Pitmillie, on the
King's knowledge of Hender-
son, 114

Gowdie, Isobel, accused of witch-
craft, 198

Gowrie, Earl of (father of John
Earl of, and the Master of
Ruthven), one of the Riccio
murderers, 118 ; in charge of
Mary at Lochleven, 118 ; par-
doned for his share in the Raid
of Ruthven, 119 ; arrested and
brought to trial, 120; foul
means by which his conviction
was procured, 120-123 ; fore-
knowledge of the Angus con-
spiracy, 121, 122 ; nobles charged
by him with treachery, 122 ;
execution, 11, 55, 56, 121 ; the
King's debt to him, 84 ; after
death denounced by James as a
traitor, 96 ; the Casket Letters
in his possession, 240

Gowrie House, situation and topo-

INDEX

269

graphy of, 14-18 ; Lennox's ac-
count of proceedings at, on the
day of the slaughter, 20 et seq.

Gowrie Inn, 18

Gowrie, John Earl of, his attri-
buted relations with the Queen,
3 ; speculations as to his aims
and character, 5, 7 ; and the
causes leading to his death, 5,
7 ; alleged plot to seize James,
7 ; his retainers' evidence there-
on, 9 ; the Duke of Lennox's
account of events, 13 et seq. ;
James's invitation to Gowrie
House to see the treasure, 14 ;
situation and topography of
his house, 15-18 ; observers'
accounts of his plot said to
have been aimed at the King,
20-34 ; the manner of his death,
31 ; the King's own narrative
of the Goivrie plot, 35 et seq. ;
his conduct in the light of that
narrative, 42 ; the circumstance
of the man in the turret, and
the plot of gold concealed from
him, 41, 42, 49, 50 ; Henderson
sent by the Master to warn
him of the King's arrival, 43 ;
secrecy enjoined by him on
Henderson as to the ride to
Falkland, 44 ; silent as to his
knowledge of the King's
approach, 45 ; makes no pre-
paration for the King's dinner
46, 49 ; influence of a disagree-
ment between him and the
Master, respecting the Abbey
of Scone, 48, 49 ; meets the
King and conducts him to
Gowrie House, 49 ; his uneasy
conduct while the King dines,
49, 50 ; account of his share in
the plot drawn from Hender-
son's deposition, 64 ; questions
Henderson about the King, 65 ;
bids Henderson put on his secret
coat of mail to arrest a High-
lander, 65 ; the contemporary
JRuthven Vindication, 80-93 ;
theory of an accidental brawl,
94-98 ; contemporary clerical

and popular criticism, 99 et seq. ;
alleged attempts to entangle
James in negotiations with
the Pope, 104; grounds for
a hereditary feud between
him and James, 118 ; elected
provost of Perth, 124 ; at
Edinburgh University, 124 ;
in alliance with Bothwell and
Atholl against James, 125 ;
their manifesto to the Kirk,
125 ; goes with his tutor Ehynd
to Padua, 126 ; his emblem, and
saying regarding it, 127 ; extols
the conduct of an English
fanatic at Kome, 127 : re-
ported to have been converted
to Catholicism, 128 ; his name
on Bothwell's list of Scottish
Catholic nobles ripe for the
invasion of Scotland, 129 ;
presented by Elizabeth, in
London, with a cabinet of
plate, 130; James jealous of
him on his return to Edin-
burgh, 131 ; opposes the King's
demands for money, 131, 141 ;
letter of invitation to Court,
from the Queen, 133 ; letter of
invitation to Falkland from
James, 134, 135 ; quits Strab-
ran for Perth, 136 ; movements
on the morning of the tragedy,
137 ; granted exemption for a
year from pursuit by creditors,
141 ; rumour that he was a
candidate for the English
throne, 141 ; motives of re-
venge urging him to plot
against James, 143 ; his views
as to secrecy in plots, 144 ;
evidences of his intention to
capture James and convey him
to Dirleton, 145, 146 ; letter to
Logan, 183, 184 ; anxious that
Lord Home should be initiated
into the conspiracy, 206, 207 ;
his arms and ambitions, 245-
251 ; emblem at Padua, 247,
248, 256 ; Tudor descent, 249 ;
pedigree, 248, 249, 250 ; Both-
well's statement implying that

270

THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

he was a secret candidate for
James's crown, 251

Gowrie, Lady (Gowrie's mother),
aids Bothwell in capturing
James at Holyrood, 124, 125 ;
her movements immediately
prior to the tragedy, 136 ; at
Dirleton on August 6, 136 ;
her suit for relief from her
creditors, 141

Graham of Balgonie, reports the
Master's desire to be alone with
the King while inspecting the
treasure, 50 ; picks up the gar-
ter supposed to have been used
to tie James's hands in the tur-
ret chamber, 58 ; verbal narra-
tive of the King's escape to the
Privy Council, 101

Graham, Richard (wizard), ac-
cuses Bothwell of attempting
James's life by sorcery, 198, 199

Gray, suspected as the man in the
turret, 62

Gray, the Master of, reports Len-
nox's doubt whether Gowrie or
the King was guilty, 116 ; his
relations with Logan of Restal-
rig, 156, 157

Guevara, Sir John (cousin of Lord
Willoughbyj, his share in kid-
napping Ashfield, 139 ; cited,
146, 218

Gunnisgreen, Logan of Restalrig's
residence, 162

Gunton, Mr. (Librarian at Hat-
field), on Logan's letters, 239,
241

HADDINGTON, Earl of, in posses-
sion of records of Sprot's pri-
vate examinations, 173, 174; the
torn letter, 216, 217 ; copies of
Logan's letters (I, IV), 224;
documents written by Sprot, 241

Hailes, Lord, cited, 62 note ; on a
contemporary treatise in vindi-
cation of the Ruthvens, 81 ; his
romantic story concerning the
Master of Rut'hven, 132

Hall, Rev. John, his objection to

acceptance of James's narra-
tive, 103 ; restored to his pulpit,
105 ; present when Sproc con-
fessed to forgery of the Logan
letters, 186 ; at Sprot's exami-
nation, 217, 220, 226

Hamilton, Lord, asked to head the
party of the Kirk, 177

Hamilton of Grange, at the
slaughter of the Ruthvens, 19

Hamilton, Sir Thomas (the King's
Advocate), 64 ; preserves the
records of Sprot's private ex-
aminations, 173, 174 ; at Sprot's
examinations, 201, 210 ; Sprot's
model letter delivered to him,
224

Hamilton, Thomas, on the doors
passed through by the Master
and James to reach the turret,
52

Hart, Sir William (Chief Justice),
his account of Sprot's examina-
tions and trial, 168, 177, 178,
179, 180, 181, 220

Hay, George (lay Prior of the
Chartreux in Perth), on
Henderson and the Falkland
ride, 45 ; on Henderson's
message to Gowrie from the
Master, 65 ; at Perth on August
5th, 137

Hay, Peter, on Henderson and
the Falkland ride, 45

Heddilstane, 196 ; receipts from
Logan to him forged by
Sprot, 199 ; blackmailed by
Sprot, 199

Henderson, Andrew, with the
Master of Ruthveii at Gowrie
House, 43 ; accompanies the
Master on a mission to James
at Falkland, and sent with a
message to Gowrie, 44 ; en-
joined by Gowrie to keep this
ride secret, 44, 45 ; Robertson's
evidence respecting his presence
in the death chamber, 60, 61 ;
other theories on the same
note ; his flight after the affray,
60, 62 ; proclaimed by Galloway
as the man in the turret, 63 :

INDEX

271

reasons for his flight, 64;
examined before the Lords,

64 ; his narrative of the events
leading to the tragedy, 64;
incidents at Falkland, 65 ; the
Master's message to Gowrie,

65 ; bidden to put on a coat of
mail by Gowrie, 66 ; waits on
the King at dinner, 65 ; sent to
the Master in the gallery, 66 ;
locked in the turret by the
Master, 66 ; accordance of his
account of the final scenes in
the tragedy with that of the
King, 66 ; states that he threw
the dagger out of the Master's
hand, 66 ; discrepancies in his
later deposition, 67 ; in his
second deposition omits the
statement that he deprived the
Master of his dagger, 67 ; his
version of the words exchanged
between the Master and James
in the turret chamber, 68 ; the
question of his disarming the
Master, 69 ; on what was his
confession modelled, 70 ; clings
to the incident of the garter,
70 ; the most incredible part of
his narrative. 70 ; perils to him
in listening to treasonable pro-
posals from the Euthvens, 72 ;
Kobert Oliphant's statement
contrasted with his, 75, 77 ;
quarrels with Herries, 77, 78 ;
Eev. Mr. Brace's attitude
towards his deposition, 103,
104; said to have been
induced by the Rev. Mr.
Galloway to pretend to be the
man in the turret, 114 ; share
in the Gowrie affair, 145 ;
questioned by Moncrieff, 145

Henry, Prince (son of James VI
and his heir), in the charge of
Mar, 138

Heron, Captain Patrick, his
career, 76 note ; seizes, by
commission, Oliphant's port-
able property and claps him in
prison in the Gate House of
Westminster, 76 ; compelled

to restore Oliphant's property,

77.
Herries, Dr., at the King's hunt

at Falkland, 12 ; at Gowrie
House when the Ruthvens were
killed, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31;
his share in the affray, 59, 85 ;
wounded by Cranstoun, 74 ;
quarrels with Henderson, 77 ;
knighted and rewarded, 78 ;
fable of his prophecy to Beatrix
Euthven, 131

Hewat, Rev. Peter, accepts
James's narrative, 102, 103 ; at
Sprot's examination, 186, 217,
220, 226

History of the Kirk of Scotland
(MS.), cited, 164

Hogg, Eev. William (minister of
Aytoun), on the Logan plot-
letters, 243

Home, Lady, aware of Logan's
desire to obtain Dirleton, 207.
208

Home, (sixth) Lord, in communi-
cation with Bothwell, 129, 130,
152, 205, 206, 207

Home. Lord (Logan's uterine
brother), 184, 187, 205 ; Logan's
contempt for him as a con-
spirator, 237

Home, William (sheriff clerk of
Berwick), on the Logan plot-
letters, 243

Home, John (notary in Eye-
rnouth), on the Logan plot-
letters, 243

Horse, King James's, his part in
the Gowrie mystery, 22

Hudson, Mr. (James's resident at
the Court of England), inter-
views the King and Henderson
on the transactions in the
turret chamber, 67, 69 note ;
his explanation of the origin of
differences between the King's
narrative and Henderson's evi-
dence, 69

Hume of Cowdenknowes (married
to Gowrie's sister Beatrix), 124

Hume of Godscroft, on a message
from the Earl of Angus to

272

THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

Gowrie's father in conspiracy,

121, 122

Hume of Manderston, 187
Hume of Eentoun, 196
Hume, Sir George, of Spot, 64

JAMES VI of Scotland, married
to Anne of Denmark, 2 ; early
life and character, 4 ; his version
of the Gowrie n^stery, 6 ;
reasons for doubting his guilt,
7 ; untrustworthiness of his
word, 8 ; substantial character
of his tale, 9 ; love of the chase,
11 ; political troubles, 11 ;
hunting costume, 12 ; concerning
him, facts drawn from Lennox,
13 et seq. ; starts for the hunt
in Falkland Park, 13 ; the
Master of Ruthven interviews
him before the hunt, 13 ; goes to
Gowrie's house, 14 ; observers'
accounts of the transactions
indicating him, 20-34 ; his
dinner at Gowrie House, 20 ;
goes upstairs on a quiet errand,
20 ; Cranstoun's statement that
the King had ridden away, 20 ;
search for him in the house, 21 ;
Gowrie confirms his departure,
22 ; but — the King's horse
still in the stable, 22 ; heard
calling from the window, 23;
struggle with the Master of
Ruthven, 24, 25, 26 ; the man
in the turret behind the King's
back, 25 ; sanctions the stabbing
of the Master of Ruthven by
Ramsay, 26 ; shut up in the
turret, 29, 30 ; kneels in prayer
in the chamber bloody with the
corpse of Gowrie, 32 ; his own
narrative of the affair, 35 et
seq. ; theory of the object of
the Ruthvens, 37 ; the Master of
Ruthven' s statement to him of
the cloaked man and the pot
full of coined gold pieces, 39 ;
suspects the Jesuits of import-
ing foreign gold for seditious
purposes, 40 ; his horror of
'practising Papists,' 40; hypo-

thesis of his intended kidnap-
ping, 37, 42 ; importance of
the ride of the Master and
Henderson to Falkland and its
concealment to the substantia-
tion of his narrative, 44, 45, 46 ;
asserts Henderson's presence
at Falkland, 46 ; rides, followed
by Mar and Lennox, after the
kill to Perth, 47 ; surmises
regarding Ruthven, 47 ; motives
for the Master acquiring his
favour regarding the Abbey of
Scone, 48 ; asks Lennox if he
thinks the Master settled in his
wits, 48 ; pressed by the Master
to come on and see the man and
the treasure, 48 ; met by Gowrie
with sixty men, 49 ; presses
the Master for a sight of the
treasure, 49 ; the Master asks
him to keep the treasure a
secret from Gowrie, 49 ;
Gowrie's uneasy behaviour
while the King dines, 49, 50 ;
despatches Gowrie to the Hall
with the grace-cup, and follows
the Master alone to the turret
to view the treasure, 50, 51 ;
the question of the doors he
passed through to reach the
turret chamber and their
locking by the Master, 51, 52,
53, 54 ; threatened by the
Master with the dagger of a
strange man in the turret
chamber, 55 ; denounced for
the execution of the Master's
father, 56 ; his harangue to the
Master excusing his action, and
promising forgiveness if released,
56 ; Ruthven goes to consult
Gowrie, leaving him in the
custody of the man, 56 ; questions
the man about the conspiracy,
57 ; orders the man to open the
window, 58 ; the Master returns
and essays to bind his hands
with a garter, 58 ; struggles
with the Master and shouts
Treason from the window, 58 ;
rescued by Rarnsay, who wounds

INDEX

273

the Master, 59 ; returns to
Falkland, 59 ; Henderson's
narrative of events, 60 et seq. ;
his interview with the Master
and journey to Gowrie House,
65 ; at dinner, 65 ; Henderson's
account of the struggle in the
turret chamber mainly in
accord with the King's narra-
tive, 66 ; discrepancy between his
and Henderson's accounts of the
disarming of Euthven, 69, 104 ;
causes Oliphant to be lodged in
the Gate House, Westminster,
76 ; subsequently releases him
and restores his property, 76, 77 ;
maintains his to be the true
account of the Gowrie affair
and disregards discrepancies in
evidence, 78 ; on the way to
Gowrie House had informed
Lennox of Euthven's tale of the
pot of gold, 94 ; theory of his
concoction of the tale, 95 ;
despatches Preston to Elizabeth
with his version of the Gowrie
affair, 96 ; rates the Edinburgh
preachers for refusing to thank
God for his delivery from a
' Gowrie plot,' 101 ; reasons
for his ferocity towards the re-
calcitrant preachers, 102; his
alleged ' causes ' for the death
of Gowrie, 104 ; Bruce states
that he is convinced, on Mar's
oath chiefly, of his innocence,
106 ; under interrogation by
Bruce, 107, 108 ; subsequent
persecution of Bruce, 109 ; ob-
jections taken by contemporary
sceptics to his narrative, 111-
117 ; grounds for a hereditary
feud between him and Gowrie,

118 ; early years of his reign,

119 ; the Eaid of Euthven, 119 ;
his acquiescence in the execution
of Gowrie's father, 123 ; Arran's
influence over him, 119, 123 ;
suspected of favouring the
Catholic earls of the North,
124 ; Gowrie, Atholl and Both-
well in alliance against him,

125 ; their manifesto to the Kirk,
125 ; Gowrie's relique at Padua
forwarded to him by Sir Eobert
Douglas, 127 ; early correspon-
dence with Gowrie, 127 ; his
alleged jealousy of Gowrie, 130;
gives Gowrie a year's respite
from pursuit of his creditors,
131; thwarted by Gowrie in
his demands for money, 131 ;
romantic story of his discovery
of the Queen's ribbon on the
Master's neck, 132 ; his letters
inviting Atholl, the Master and
Gowrie to Falkland, 134, 135,
note ; his motives for killing
both the Euthvens, 139, 140 ;
method attributed to him by his
adversaries on which he might
have carried out a plot against
the Euthvens, 142 ; plots
against him encouraged by the
English Government, 161 ; his
life aimed at by witchcraft,
198. See 'The Verie Manner
of the Erll of Gowrie,' &c.
Jesuits, suspected by James of
importing foreign coin for sedi-
tious purposes, 40

KEITH, Andrew, at Padua, 126, 248
Ker, George (Catholic intriguer

with Spain), 154
Ker of Newbattle, at Padua with

Gowrie, 248
Ker, Eobert, of Newbattle, at

Padua, 126
Kirk, the, the King's version of

the Gowrie plot discredited by,

36
Kirkcaldy of Grange, in defence of

Edinburgh Castle, 152 ; hanged

on the fall of the castle, 153

LENNOX, Duke of, at the King's
hunt in Falkland Park, 12, 47;
his account of what followed,
13 et seq. ; accompanies James
to Gowrie House, 14 ; his opin-
ion of the Master of Euthven
and the story of the pitcher of

274

THE GOWEIE MYSTERY

gold coins, 14 ; at Gowrie House
with the King, 19; his version and
that of others of the transactions
which brought about the deaths
of Gowrie and the Master, 20-
34 ; questioned by James as to
the sanity of the Master, 48 ;
informed by James of the Mas-
ter's story of the gold coins, 94,
95 ; at the slaughter of the
Euthvens, 86, 88, 119, 124;
married to Gowrie's sister
Sophia, 124

Lesley, suspected as the man in
the turret, 62

Letter I (Logan to - - ), 167, 174,
185, 188, 189, 196, 200, 216,
217, 223, 224, 225, 226, 228,

230, 232, 233, 234, 235, 257,
258

Letter II (Logan to Bower), 183,
184, 185, 188, 189, 195, 205,
208, 224, 228, 229, 239, 258,
259

Letter III (Logan to — ), 200,
216, 217, 223, 224, 228, 232,
233, 234, 235, 239, 259, 260

Letter IV (Logan to Gowrie).
cited, 166, 167, 170, 173, 174,
175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181,
182, 186, 187, 190, 191, 192,
194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 202,
206, 207, 215, 221, 222, 223,
224, 225, 226, 228, 229, 230,

231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236,
237, 238, 260-263

Letter V (Logan to - - ), 200, 215,

216, 217, 223, 224, 228, 232,

233, 234, 235, 263, 264
Lindores, at the slaughter of the

Ruthvens, 19, 20, 21
Lindsay, James, at Padua with

Gowrie, 126, 248
Lindsay, Lord, surety for Lord

Eobert Stewart, 153
Lindsay, Rev. David, sent to tell

James's story of his escape from

the Gowrie plot at the Cross,

Edinburgh, 101
Lindsay, Sir Harry, Laird of

Kinfauns, Sprot withdraws his

charge against him, 217

Locke, Henry (Cecil's go-between
and agent in conspiracy against
James), 160

Logan, Matthew, 187, 189, 193,
203 ; bearer of letters from
Logan to Bower, 211, 212, 213 ;
account of Bower's reception of
them, 213 ; denies every word
attributed to him by Sprot, 213,
220

Logan, Sir Robert (father of Logan
of Restalrig), 150, 205, 206

Logan of Restalrig, his name on
Bothwell's list of Catholic
nobles, 129 ; surety for Lord
Robert Stewart, 153 ; marries
Elizabeth Macgill, and is di-
vorced from her, 153 ; on terms
both with Protestant and Catho-
lic conspirators, 154, 155, 156 ;
diplomatic ambitions, 156 ; on
the packed jury which acquits
Archibald Douglas, 157 ; rela-
tions with the Master of Gray.
157 ; a partisan, with Gowrie's
father, of Bothwell, 157 ; helps
himself to the plate-chest of
Nesbit of Newton, 158; bound
over not to put Fastcastle in the
hands of the King's enemies,
158 ; his character from Lord
Willoughby, 159 ; intimacy
with the Mowbrays, 160 ; sells
all his landed property at the
time of the Gowrie plot, 161,
205 ; erratic behaviour previous
to his death, 161 ; death, 161,
162; compromising papers from
him found on his notary Sprot,
162 ; under torture Sprot con-
fesses these papers to be his
own forgeries, 162 ; on examina-
tion before the Privy Council
Sprot persists in Logan's com-
plicity in the Gowrie plot, 163,
170; his exhumed remains
brought into court and tried
for treason, 164 ; compromising
letters, 164, 165 ; his family
forfeited, 165 ; production of
alleged plot-letters at his post-
humous trial, 168, 175 ; con-

INDEX

275

tents of Letter IV to Gowrie,
176 ; use made of the letters by
the Government, 179, 181 ; let-
ters from and to Gowrie, 183 ;
letter to Bower, 183, 184, 185 ;
conduct immediately before and
after Gowrie's death, 187 ; his
scheme to get possession of
Dirleton, 189 ; his keep Fast-
castle, where it is said James
was to have been carried, 193 ;
charge of conspiracy to murder
James made hi the Indictment
in his posthumous trial, 193 ;
faint evidence that he was con-
nected with the Gowrie plot,
194 ; with Bower at Colding-
hame on the failure of the plot,
195 ; memorandum to Bower
and Bell, 195 ; singular beha-
viour in trusting his letters to
Bower, 202; burns Euthven's
and Clerk's letters, 202; letter
to Baillie of Littlegill, 202;
events at his Yule at Gunnis-
green, 203 ; takes Sprot into his
confidence, 204 ; discourages
the idea of bringing Lord Home
into the plot, 207, 208 ; conver-
sation with Lady Home about
Dirleton, 208 ; his visit to Lon-
don, 210 ; letter to Bower, and
Sprot's answer, 211 ; fears the
effect of Bower's rash speeches,
212 ; forged letters attributed
to him, 215, 216, 217 ; partner
in a ship with Lord Willoughby,
218 ; his letter to Gowrie the
model for Sprot's forgeries, 177,
221 ; motives for his sale of his
lands, 228

Logan, Robert (son of Logan of
Restalrig and Elizabeth Mac-
gill), 153

Lords of the Articles, the, the
Gowrie case before, 8 ; the
Logan trial before, 165

Lumisden, Eev. Mr., present
when Sprot confessed to forgery
of letters, 186 ; at the examina-
tion of Sprot, 226

Lyn, tailor, Mr. Eobert Oliphant's

confidences to him about the
Gowrie plot, 73, 75

MACBRECK, witness of the attack
on Gowrie, 29

Macgill, Elizabeth, married to
Logan of Eestalrig, and
divorced from him, 153

Maitland of Lethington, 152

Man, the, in the turret, 35, 55,
56, 57, 62, 72

Mar, Earl of, at the King's hunt
at Falkland, 12, 47 ; with James
at Gowrie House, 23, 24, 26,
32 ; at the Gowrie slaughter,
86, 88 ; assures the preacher
Bruce of the truth of the King's
narrative, 104, 105 ; is told by
Bruce that he will accept the
verdict in the Gowrie case but
not preach Gowrie's guilt, 105 ;
entrusted by James with the
care of Prince Henry, 138 ; the
Queen's plots against him, 138

Mary of Guise (James's grand-
mother), 118

Mary Queen of Scots and the
Casket Letters, 5, 7, 8 ; declares
that Euthven (Gowrie's grand-
father) persecuted her by his
lust, 119

Mason, Peter, 190

Masson, Dr., on the Gowrie
mystery, 5

Matthew, Toby (Dean of Dur-
ham), Bothwell's statement to
him, 251

Maul, one of Sprot's victims, 203

Maxwell, Lord, cited, 193

Melville, Sir Eobert, his treachery
in procuring the conviction of
Gowrie's father, 120-122

Moncrieff, Hew, present at the
slaughter of the Euthvens, 29,
32 ; at the fight in the death
chamber, 60 ; proclaimed, 63 ;
puzzled regarding the Master's
early ride from Perth to Falk-
land, 137

Moncrieff, John, questions Hender-
son as to the ride to Falkland,

276

THE GOWKIE MYSTEEY

44, 145 ; on Gowrie's silence as
to his knowledge of the King's
approach, 45 ; on Gowrie's
actions on the morning of the
fatal 5th, 137

Montrose (Chancellor), 64 ;
desires the preachers to thank
God in their churches for the
King's ' miraculous delivery,'
100

Montrose, the Master of, conspir-
ing against James, 125

Moray, Earl, his alleged relations
with Queen Anne, 2

Morton, Eegent, confines Lord
Eobert Stewart in Linlithgow
Castle, 153

Mossman, imprisoned for share
in the Gowrie plot, 203

Mowbray, Francis, intriguing with
Cecil against James, 159 ; im-
prisoned in Edinburgh Castle,
and killed in trying to escape
therefrom, 160

Mowbray, Philip, of Barnbogle,
surety for Lord Robert Stewart,
153; intriguing with Cecil
against James, 159

Moysie, David, probable writer of
the Falkland letter, after the
slaughter of the Euthvens, 38
note; 100

Murray, George, in attendance on
James, 12

Murray, John of Arbany, in
attendance on James, 12 ; with
James at the slaughter of the
Euthvens, 24, 25, 26, 32, 61;
wounded by a Euthven partisan,
88

Murray, Sir David, on Gowrie's
speech against James's demands
for money, 131

Murray of Tullibardine, in Perth
at the time of the Gowrie tra-
gedy, 28

NAISMITH (surgeon), with James
at the Falkland hunt, 47

Napier, Mr. Mark, on Sprot's
alleged forgery of the Logan
letters, 172, 173, 222; denies

that any compromising letters
were found, 178

Napier of Merchistoun, his con-
tract as to gold-finding with
Logan of Eestalrig, 171

Nesbit, William, of Newton,
robbed by Logan, 158

Neville, recommends Gowrie to
Cecil as a useful man, 130

Nicholson, George (English resi-
dent at the Court of Holyrood),
his account of James's Falkland
letter on the Gowrie case, 38;
on Eobert Oliphant's indiscre-
tions of speech, 74 ; communi-
cates to Cecil Oliphant's state-
ment respecting Cranstoun and
Henderson 75 note; refers to
a book on the Euthven side
published in England, 82 ; cites
the King's letter to the Privy
Council regarding the Gowrie
plot, 100, 102 ; informs Cecil of
Gowrie's conversion to Catholi-
cism, 128

OLIPHANT of Bauchiltoun, brother
of Eobert, 77

Oliphant, Eobert, identified by
the first proclamation as the
man in the turret, 62 ; proves
an alibi, 62, 72 ; his confidences
to tailor Lyn anent his fore-
knowledge of the Gowrie plot,
73 ; denounces the hanging of
Cranstoun, and affirms the
guilt of Henderson, 75 ; avers
that Gowrie proposed to him
in Paris the part offered to
Henderson, 75 ; seeks to divert
Gowrie from his project, 75 ;
his portable property seized by
Captain Heron, and himself
imprisoned, 76 ; released by
James and goes abroad, 76;
property subsequently restored,
77; his statement contrasted
with Henderson's, 77 ; cited, 144

PADUA University, 126
Panton, Mr., on Henderson at
Falkland, 64 note ; his defence

INDEX

277

of the Euthvens, 80 ; refers to
a contemporary vindication, 80

' Papers relating to the Master of
Gray,' cited, 158

Paul, Sir James Balfour, on the
Gowrie arms, 245

Perth, gathering of the burgesses
of, before Gowrie House on
the day of the slaughter of the
Euthvens, 30, 32

Pitcairn, on Bruce's interrogation
of the King, 109 ; discovery and
publication of Logan of Eestal-
rig's alleged plot-letters, 169

Pittencrieff, Laird of, at Gowrie
House on the day when the
Euthvens were killed, 23

Popular contemporary criticism on
the King's narrative, 111-117

Preachers of Edinburgh, the,
summoned before the Privy
Council to hear the King's
letter on the Gowrie plot read,

99, 100 ; desired by Montrose
to thank God for the King's
' miraculous delivery,' 100 ;
their reply to that request,

100, 101 ; taken to task by
James for refusing to thank
God for his delivery from a
Gowrie ' conspiracy,' 101 ; their
defence, 101, 102 ; James's
punishment of the recalcitrants,
102 ; before the King at Stir-
ling, 103-106 ; summon Gowrie
home to be the leader of the
Kirk, 140

Preston, sent by James to Eliza-
beth with his version of the
Gowrie affair, 96 ; his account
to Sir William Bowes, 97 note

Primrose (Clerk of Council), attests
the record of Sprot's examina-
tion, 201, 210

Privy Council, Scottish, receipt of
a letter from James containing
an account of the Gowrie plot,
99 ; the preachers summoned
to hear it read, and desired by
the Chancellor to thank God
in their churches for the King's
escape, 99, 100 ; report to

James that the preachers will
not praise God for his delivery,
101

EAID of Euthven, the, 119

Eamsay, John, in attendance on
James, 12; his share in the
proceedings at Gowrie House
which led to the deaths of the
Gowries, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29,
31, 33, 53, 97; takes part in
the slaughter of the Master of
Euthven, 26, 85 ; kills the Earl
of Gowrie, 31

Eay, Andrew (a bailie of Perth),
at Gowrie House on the day of
the slaughter of the Euthvens,
21,24

Eestalrig House, 149, 150

Eestalrig, Lady (Logan's wife),
189 ; her agitation on the know-
ledge of the Logan conspiracy,
204 ; blames Bower for the
selling of Fastcastle, 204; her
postscript to Logan's letter to
Bower after his death, 215 ; dis-
tressed at Logan's conduct, 220 ;
her daughter by Logan, 220

Eestalrig Loch, 149, 150

Eestalrig village, 148, 149, 150, 151

' Eeturn from Parnassus,' the,
quoted, 126

Ehynd, Mr. (Gowrie's tutor), at
Padua with Gowrie, 126; at
Gowrie House when the Euth-
vens were killed, 32 ; tells of
the ride to Falkland, 45, 46 ;
gives the key of the gallery to
the Master, 66; on Gowrie's
views as to secrecy in plots, 144

Eobertson, Eev. Mr. (Edinburgh
preacher), accepts James's nar-
rative, 102

Eobertson, William (notary of
Perth), his evidence of what he
saw near the death chamber,
60, 61, 97

Eoll of Scottish scholars at Padua,
126

Eollock, Mr. (tutor to Gowrie and
the Master), 56, 124

278

THE GOWEIE MYSTERY

Ruthven, Alexander, the Master
of (Gowrie's brother), attributed
relations with the Queen, 3 ;
plot to seize the King, 7 ; Len-
nox's version of events, 13 et
seq.; interviews James before
the hunt in Falkland Park, 13 ;
induces the King to visit Perth,
to see the pot of gold coins, 14 ;
his actions at Gowrie House
after the King's arrival, 19 ;
observers' accounts of the
transactions which led to his
death, 24-34 ; stabbed by
Ramsay, 26 ; James's own
narrative of the affair, 35 et
seq. ; the King's interview with
the Master, 39 ; the cloaked
man and the lure of the pot of
gold pieces, 39-42 ; his sug-
gested project of kidnapping
James, 42 ; was accompanied
by Henderson in his mission to
James at Falkland, 43, 44 ;
alleged differences with his
brother over the Abbey of

Scone, 48, 49 ; enjoins on
James to keep the treasure a
secret from Gowrie, 49 ; con-
ducts the King alone to view
it, 50; duplicity in securing
this privacy, 51 ; suspicious
conduct in locking doors of
rooms passed through, 51, 52,
53 ; threatens the King with a
dagger, 55 ; James harangues
him and promises forgiveness,
56 ; goes to consult Gowrie,
leaving James in the custody
of the man in the turret, 56 ;
returns and essays to bind the
King's hands with a garter, 58 ;
struggles with the King, 58 ;
Ramsay enters and stabs him,
59 ; he is driven down stairs,
and killed by Erskine and
Herries, 59 ; further details
given by Henderson, 62 et
seq. ; his message to Gowrie by
Henderson from Falkland, 65 ;
locks Henderson in the turret,
66 ; Henderson's narrative of

the struggle with the King, 66 ;
words exchanged with James
in the turret chamber, 68 ; the
' promise,' 68 ; question of his
disarming, 69 ; romantic story
of the King's discovery of the
Queen's ribbon round his neck,
132 ; gossip about his relations
with the Queen, 133

Ruthven, Alexander (cousin of
the Earl of Gowrie), at the
slaughter of the Ruthvens, 29,
32 ; letter to Logan, 183, 184

Ruthven, Andrew, with the
Master, at Gowrie House, on
the day of the slaughter, 43,
157 ; rides with the Master and
Henderson to Falkland, 45, 64,
65 ; asserts the despatch of
Henderson by the Master from
Falkland to acquaint Gowrie of
the King's coming, 45, 46, 145

Ruthven, Beatrice (Gowrie's
sister), Queen Anne's favourite
maid of honour, 13, 124, 131

Ruthven, Harry, present at the
slaughter of the Ruthvens, 29

Ruthven, Lord (Gowrie's grand-
father), his part in the murder
of Riccio, 118

Ruthven, Mary (sister of Gowrie),
married to the Earl of Atholl,
123

Ruthven, Patrick (Gowrie's
brother), 124

Ruthven, Sophia (sister of Gow-
rie), married to Lennox, 124

Ruthven Vindication, the con-
temporary, 80-93, 252-256

Ruthven, William. (Gowrie's
brother), 124, 129

ST. TRIDUANA'S Chapel, 150, 151

Salisbury, Marquis of, in posses-
sion of genuine letters of Logan,
viii, 241

Sanderson, William, on the Gow-
rie arms, 250

Scone, Abbey of, in the Gowrie
inheritance, 48, 54

Scott, Rev. John, his Life of
John, Earl of Gowrie, cited, 80

INDEX

279

note, 248 ; on the Gowrie arms
and seal, 250, 251

Scott, Sir Walter, cited, 5

Scrymgeour, Sir Jaines (Constable
of Dundee), accused falsely by
Sprot, 217

Smith, Eev. Alexander, on the
Logan plot-letters, 242

Spottiswoode, Archbishop of Glas-
gow, his opinion of Sprot, 178 ;
kept in the dark as to the Logan
letters, 179 ; present at Sprot's
examination, 176, 201, 210

Sprot (Logan of Eestalrig's law
agent), arrested by Watty Doig,
162 ; confesses that he knew
beforehand of the Gowrie con-
spiracy, 162 ; tortured, and in
part recants, 162 ; persists in
maintaining Logan of Eestal-
rig's complicity in the Gowrie
conspiracy, 163, 170 ; question
of his forgery of letters to prove
Logan's guilt, 170, 171 ; motive
for forging the letters, 172 ;
confesses to the forgery in
private examinations, 173 ; re-
cords of those examinations in
possession of the Earl of Had-
dington, 173; letters quoted
from memory by him, 175 ; the
indictment against him, 176,
177 ; Sir William Hart's official
statement of his trial, 177, 178 ;
use made by the prosecution of
the Logan letters, 179 ; his tale
of Logan's guilt, 182 ; sources
of his knowledge, 183, 184 ;
discrepancies in his statements,
184, 185 ; preachers present at
his confession of forgery, 186 ;
his written deposition, 186 ; the
cause for which he forged, 187 ;
his conflicting dates, 188 ; his
account of Logan and Bower's
scheme to get Dirleton, 189 ;
excuses for the discrepancies in
his dates, 192; asserts that
Logan let Bower keep his letter
to Gowrie for months, 195^;
steals that letter, 194 ; confesses
to the forgery of Logan's letter

to Bower, 195 ; and to that of
Logan's memorandum to Bower
and Bell, 196 ; blackmailing
operations, 196, 197 ; forges
receipts from Logan to Heddil-
stane for blackmailing purposes,
199; his uncorroborated charges,
202, 203 ; in the confidence of
Logan, 204 ; his account of
Logan's revels in London, 210;
goes with Matthew Logan to
Bower to give answers to
Logan's letters, 211 ; denies
that he had received promise
of life or reward, 214 ; reports
an incriminating conversation
with Matthew Logan, 214 ; con-
fesses forging, for blackmailing
purposes, Logan's letters to
Chirnside and the torn letter,
215 ; swears to the truth of his
last five depositions, 217 ; on
Logan's ship venture with Lord
Willoughby, 219 ; solemnly
confesses to the forgery of the
letters in Logan's hand, 220;
details respecting the letter of
Logan to Gowrie on which he
modelled his forgeries, 220, 221,
222, 223 ; the letter found in
his kist, 224; copies endorsed
by him found among the Had-
dington MSS., 224, 225 ; oral
discrepancies, 225 ; tried and
hanged at Edinburgh, 226 ;
protestations on the scaffold,
226 ; small effect of his dying
confession on the Kirk party,
227 ; motives which prompted
his forgeries, 227-231
Stewart, Colonel, his part in the
arrest and the conviction of
Gowrie's father, 11, 120, 122 ;
dreads Gowrie's revenge, 140

' THE Verie Manner of the Erll
of Gowrie and his brother,
their death, &c.,' a manuscript
written in vindication of the
Euthvens, received by Carey,
and forwarded to Cecil, 81 ;
conspectus of its arguments :

280

THE GOWEIE MYSTERY

Dr. Herries shown the secret
parts of Gowrie House a day
or two before the tragedy, 82 ;
preparations by Gowrie's re-
tainers on the fatal day to
accompany him to Dirleton,
82 ; the visit of the Master
to Falkland, accompanied by
Buthven and Henderson, 83;
the Master sends Henderson
to Gowrie with a message that
the King will visit him ' for
what occasion he knew not,'
83 ; the Master tells Craigen-
gelt that Ahercromby brought
the King to Gowrie House to
take order for his debt, 83, 84 ;
James accompanied to Perth
by sixty horsemen, 84 ; Gowrie
advertised of the King's ap-
proach by Henderson, 84;
James meets Gowrie on the
Inch of Perth and kisses him,
85 ; a hurried dinner, 85 ; the
keys of the house handed to
Gowrie's retainers, 85 ; the
slaughter of the Master in the
presence of four of James's
followers, 85 ; a servant of
James brings the news that
he has ridden off, 85 ; Gowrie
hears his Majesty call from
the window that the Master is
killed by traitors and James
himself in peril, 86 ; Gowrie
and Cranstoun alone permitted
by James's servants to enter
the House, 86 ; Sir Thomas
Erskine's dual role, 86 ; the
true account of Gowrie's death,
87 ; the question of Henderson's
presence at Falkland, 83, 87,
92 ; derivation of the narrative,
87 ; on the payment by Gowrie
of his father's debts, 87 ; points
on which the narrative is false,
86-88; points ignored, 88, 89;
presents a consistent theory
of the King's plot, 89 ; con-
flicting statements, 89, 90, 91,

92 ; the detail of the locked
door, 92

' True Discourse,' quoted on the
doors leading to the turret, 52

' True Discovery of the late Trea-
son, the ' (unpublished MS.), on
the Gowrie family, 48

Tullibardine, Young, at the
slaughter of the1 Earl of Gow-
rie, 28, 33 ; effort to relieve the
King, 60; helps to pacify the
populace after the tragedy, 88

Tytler, Mr., cited, on James VI,
5 ; on the King's account of
the Gowrie tragedy, 41, 42 ;
on Logan's plot -letters, 169

URCHILL, present at the slaughter
of the Gowries, 19

VINDICATION of the Euthvens, the
contemporary, 80 et seq., 252
et seq.

WALLACE, asks Sprot for silence
on Logan's conspiracy, 187

Watson, Eev. Alexander, on the
Logan plot-letters, 242

Wilky, Alexander, surety for
John Wilky not to harm
tailor Lyn, 73, 74

Wilky, John, his pursuit of tailor
Lyn for revealing Eobert
Oliphant's confidences respect-
ing the Gowrie plot, 73, 74

Willoughby, Lord, kidnaps Ash-
field, 139 ; his opinion of Logan
of Eestalrig, 159 ; builds a ship
for protection of English com-
merce, 218 ; offers the venture
to Cecil if subsidised by govern-
ment, 218, 219 ; admits Logan
to the venture, 218, 219 ; dies
suddenly on board his ship, 219

Wilson (Erskine's servant), at the
slaughter of the Euthvens, 27,
30, 31, 85

YOUNGER, suspected as the man
in the turret, 62

Spottiswoode <& Co. Ltd. Printers, Jfeip-street Square, London.

» _- .— . J .

ft *-»-a

rancn,

Aves.

• r>.

H Classtfieb Catalogue

OF WORKS IN

GENERAL LITERATURE

PUBLISHED BY

LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.

39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.G.

91 AND 93 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, AND 32 HORNBY ROAD, BOMBAY

CONTENTS.

BADMINTON LIBRARY (THE) -

BIOGRAPHY, PERSONAL ME-
MOIRS, &c.

CHILDREN'S BOOKS

CLASSICAL LITERATURE, TRANS-
LATIONS, ETC.

COOKERY, DOMESTIC MANAGE-
MENT, &c.

EVOLUTION, ANTHROPOLOGY,

&c.

FICTION, HUMOUR, &c. -

FUR, FEATHER AND FIN SERIES

FINE ARTS (THE) AND MUSIC -

HISTORY, POLITICS, POLITY,
POLITICAL MEMOIRS, &c. -

LANGUAGE, HISTORY AND
SCIENCE OF -

LOGIC, RHETORIC, PSYCHOLOGY,

&c. ------

PAGE

25
15
36

MENTAL, MORAL, AND POLITICAL
PHILOSOPHY -

MISCELLANEOUS AND CRITICAL
WORKS - - -

POETRY AND THE DRAMA -

POLITICAL ECONOMY AND ECO-
NOMICS -

POPULAR SCIENCE -
RELIGION, THE SCIENCE OF
SILVER LIBRARY (THE)
SPORT AND PASTIME -

STONYHURST PHILOSOPHICAL
SERIES - - -

TRAVEL AND ADVENTURE, THE
COLONIES, &c. - -

17 WORKS OF REFERENCE -

PAGE
17

38
23

30
21

II
31

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND EDITORS.

Page

Abbott (Evelyn) - 3, 22

- (J. H. M.) 3

(T. K.) - - 17,18

(E. A.) - 17

Acland (A. H. D.) - 3

Acton (Eliza) - 36

Adeane (J. H.) - 9

Adelborg (O.) - 32

jEschylus 22

Ainger (A. C.) - 14
Albemarle (Earl of) - 13

Alcock (C. W.) 15

Allen (Grant) - 30

Allgood (G.) - 3

Alverstone (Lord) - 15

Angwin (M. C.) 36

Anstey (F.) 25

Aristophanes - 22

Aristotle - 17

Armstrong (W.) 13
Arnold (Sir Edwin)- 11,23

(Dr. T.) - 3

Ashbourne (Lord) - 3

Ashby (H.) 36

Ashley (W. J.) - - 3, 20

Avebury (Lord) - 21

Ayre (Rev. J.) - 31

Bacon - 9,17
Bagehot (W.) - 9, 20, 38

Bagwell (R.) - 3

Bailey (H. C.) - 25

Baillie (A. F.) - 3

Bain (Alexander) - 17

Baker (J. H.) - 38

(Sir S. W.) ir

Balfour (A. J.) - 13, 21

(Lady Betty) - 6

Ball (John)

Page

Banks (M. M.) - - 24
Baring-Gould (Rev.

S.)- -21,38

Barnett(S. A. and H.) 20

Baynes (T. S.) - 38

Beaconsfield (Earl of) 25
Beaufort (Duke of) - 13, 14

Becker (W. A.) 22

Beesly (A. H.) - 9

Bell (Mrs. Hugh) - 23

Bent (J. Theodore) - n

Besant (Sir Walter)- 3
Bickerdyke (J.) - 14, 15

Bird (G.) - - 23

Blackburne (J. H.) - 15

Bland (Mrs. Hubert) 24

Blount (Sir E.) 9

Boase (Rev. C. W.) - 6

Boedder (Rev. B.) - 19

Brassey (Lady) n

(Lord) 14

Bray (C.) - - 17

Bright (Rev. J. F.) - 3

Broadfoot (Major W.) 13

Brooks (H. J.) - 17

Brown (A. F.) - 32

(J. Moray) 14

Bruce (R. I.) - 3

BryceO.)- 14

Buck (H. A.) - 14

Buckland (Jas.) 32

Buckle (H. T.)- 3

Bull (T.) - - 36

Burke (U. R.) - 3

Burns (C. L ) - 36

Burrows (Montagu) 6

Butler (E. A.) - 30

ii I Cameron of Lochiel

Page

Campbell(Rev.Lewis) 21,22
Camperdown (Earl of) 9
Chasseloup - Laubat

(Marquisde)- 13

Chesney (Sir G.) - 3
Childe-Pemberton(W.S.) 9
Cholmondeley-Pennell

(H.) 13

Christie (R. C.) 38

ChurchilK W. Spencer) 4, 25
Cicero 22

Clarke (Rev. R. F.) - 19
Climenson (E. J.) - 10
Clodd (Edward) - 21,30
Clutterbuck (W. J.)- 12
Colenso (R. J.) 36

Conington (John) - 23
Conway (Sir W. M ) 14
Conybeare (Rev. W. J.)

& Howson (Dean) 33
Coolidge (W. A. B.) 11
Corbett (lulian S.) - 4
Coutts (W.) - 22

Coventry (A.) - 14

Cox (Harding) 13

Crake (Rev. A. D.) - 32
Craven (W. G.) 14

Crawford (J. H.) - 25

-(R.) - ir

Creed (S.) 25

Creie-hton (Bishop) -4, 6, 9
Crozier (J. B.) - - 9. '7
distance (Col. H.) - 15
Cutts (Rev. E. L.) - 6

Dabney (J. P.) - 23

Dale (L.) - 4

(T. F.) 14

Dallinger (F. W.) - 5

Dauglish (M. G.) -
Davidson (A. M. C.)
-(W. L.) 17,

Davies (J. F.) -
Dent (C. T.) -
De Salis (Mrs.)
De Tocqueville(A-)-
Devas (C. S.) -
Dickinson (G. L.) -

- (W. H.) -
Dougall (L.) -
Dowden (E.) -
Doyle (Sir A. Conan)
Du Bois (W. E. B.)-
Dufferin (Marquis of)
Dunbar (Mary F.)
Dyson (E.)

Ebrington (Viscount)
Ellis (I. H.) -

- (R. L.) -
Erasmus -
Evans (Sir John)

Page
9

20, 21
22
14
36

19, 20

38
25
40

25
5

14
25
26

15
15
17
9
38

Falkiner (C. L.) 4

Farrar (Dean) - - 20, 26

Fitzgibbon (M.) 4

Fitzmaurice (Lord E.) 4

Folkard (H. C.) 15

Ford (H.) - 16

(W. J.) - 16

Fountain (P n

Fowler (Edith H.) 26

Francis (Francis) - 16

Francis (M. E.) 26

Freeman (Edward A.) 6

Fremantie (T. F.) - 16

Fresnfield (D. W.) - 14

Frost (G.)- 38

Page

Froude (James A.) 4,9,11,26

Fuller (F. W.) - 5

Furneaux (W.) 30

Gardiner (Samuel R.) 5
Gathorne-Hardy (Hon.

A. E.) - 15, 16
Geikie (Rev. Cunning-
ham) - 38
Gibbons (J. S.) 15
Gibson (C. H.)- - 17
Gleig (Rev. G. R.) - 10
Goethe - 23
Gore-Booth (Sir H. W.) 14
Graham (A.) -

-(P. A.) - -15,16

(G. F.) - 20

Granby (Marquess of) 15

Grant (Sir A.) - 17

Graves (R. P.) - 9
Green (T. Hill) - 17, 18

Greene (E. B.)- 5

Greville (C. C. F.) - 5

Grose (T. H.) - 18

Gross (C.) 5

Grove (F. C.) - 13

(Lady) - n

(Mrs. Lilly) 13

Gurdon (Lady Camilla) 26

Gurnhill (J.)" - 18

Gvvilt (J.) - 31

Haggard (H. Rider)

n, 26, 27, 38

Hake (O.) - 14

Halliwell-Phillipps(J.) 10

Hamilton (Col. H. B.) 5

Hamlin (A. D. F.) - 36

Harding (S. B.) 5
Harmsworth (A. C.) 13, 14

Harte (Bret) - 27

Harting(J. E.)- 15

Hartwig (G.) - 30

Hassall (A.) - 8

Havveis (H. R.) - 9, 36

Head (Mrs.) - 37

Heath (D. D.) - 17

Heathcote (J. M.) - 14

(C.G.) - 14

(N.) - ii

Helmholtz (Hermann

von) - 30
Henderson (Lieut-
Col. G. F. R.) - 9
Henry (W.) - 14
Henty (G. A.) - - 32
Herbert (Col. Kenney) 15
Hiley (R. W.) - 9
Hill (Mabel) - 5
Hillier (G. Lacy) - 13
Hime (H. W. L.) - 22
Hodgson (Shadworth)iS, 38
Hoenig (F.) - 38
Hogan (J. F.) - 9
Holmes (R. R.) 10
Holroyd (M. J.) 9
Homer - 22
Hope (Anthony) 27
Horace - 22
Houston (D. F.) 5
Howard (Lady Mabel) 27
Howitt (W.) - ii
Hudson (W. H.) - 30
Huish (M. B.) - 37
Hullah (J.) 37
Hume (David) - 18
- (M. A. S.) 3
Hunt (Rev. W.) 6
Hunter (Sir W.) - 6
Hutchinson (Horace G.)

13, 16, 27, 38

Page

18
6
23

IS
6

Ingelow (Jean)
Ingram (T. D.)

23
6

Jackson (A. W.) 10

James (W.) 18

Jameson (Mrs. Anna) 37

jefferies (Richard) - 38

Jekyll (Gertrude) - 38

Jerome ( [erome K.) - 27

Johnson (J. & J. H.) 39

Jones (H. Bence) - 31
oyce (P. W.) - 6, 27, 39

ustinian - 18

Kant (I.)

Kaye(Sir J. W.)

Keary (C. F.) -

Keller (A. G.) -

Kelly (E.)-

Kent (C. B. R.)

Kerr (Rev. J.) - 14

Killick (Rev. A. H.) - 18

Kilchin (Dr. G. W.) 6

Knight (E. F.) - - n, 14

Kostlin (J.) 10

Kristeller (P.) - 37

Ladd (G. T.) 18

Lang (Andrew) 6, 14, 16, 21,

23, 27, 32, 39

Lapsley (G. T.) 5

Lascelles (Hon. G.) 13, 15

Laurie (S. S.) - 6

Lawley (Hon. F.) - 14

Lawrence (F. W.) - 20

Lear (H. L. Sidney) - 36

Leckv (W. E. H.) 6, 18, 23

Lees (J. A.) 12

Leighton (J. A.) 18

Leslie (T. E. Cliffe) - 20

Lieven (Princess) - 8

Lillie (A.) - 16

Lmdley (J.) 31

Locock (C. D.) 16

Lodge (H. C.) - 6

Loftie (Rev. W. J.) - 6

Longman (C. J.) - 12, 16

(F. W.) - 16

(G. H.) - -12,15

(Mrs. C. J.) 37

Lowell (A. L.) - 6

Lubbock (Sir John) - 21

Lucan 22

Lucian - 22

Lutoslawski (W.) - 18

Lyall (Edna) - 27

Lynch (G.) - - 6

-(H. F. B.)- 12 :

Lyttelton (Hon. R. H.) 13 [

- (Hon. A.) i 14 |

Lytton (Earl of) - 6, 24 |

Macaulay (Lord) 6, 7, 10, 24

Macdonald (Dr. G.) - 24 I

Macfarren (Sir G. A.) 37 |

Mackail (J. W.) - 10, 23

Mackenzie (C. G.) - 16

Mackinnon (J.) 7

Macleod (H. D.) 20
Macpherson (Rev.

H. A.) 15

Madden (D. H.) 16

Magnusson (E.) 28

Maher (Rev. M.) - 19

Malleson (Col. G. B.) 6

Marchment (A. W.) 27

Marshman (J. C.) - 9

Maryon (M.) - 39

Mason (A. E. W.) - 27

Maskelyne (J. N.) - 16

Matthews (B.) 39

Maunder (S.) - 31
Max Miiller (F.)

10, 18, 20, 21, 22, 27, 39

Mav (Sir T. Erskine) 7

McFerran (J.) - 14

Meade (L. T.) - 32

Mecredy (R. J.) 13

Melville (G. J . Whyte) 27

Merivale (Dean) 7

Mernman 'H. S.) - 27

Mill (John Stuart) - 18, 20

Millias (J. G.) - - 16, 30

Milner (G.) - 40

Mitchell (E.B.) 13

Monck(W. H. S.) - 19

Montague (F. C.) - 7

Moon (G. W.) - 24

Moore (T.) 31

— (Rev. Edward) - 17

Morgan (C. Lloyd) - 21

Morris (Mowbray) - 13

— (W.) 22.J23, 24,

27, 28, 37, 40

Mulhall (M. G.) 20

Murray (Hilda) 33

Nansen (F.) - 12

Nash (V.) - - 7

Nesbit (E.)
Nettleship (R. L.)
Newman (Cardinal) -
Nichols (F. M.)

Ogilvie (R.) -
Oldfield (Hon. Mrs.)
Onslow (Earl of) -
Osbourne (L.) -

Packard (A. S.) 21

Paget(SirJ.) - - 10
Park(\V.) 16

Parker (B.) 40

Payne-Gallwey (Sir

R.) - 14, 16

Pearson (C. H.) 10

Peek iHedley) - - 14
Pemberton (W. S.

Childe-) 9

Pembroke (Earl of) - 14
Pennant (C. D.) 15

Phillipps-Wolley(C.) 12,28
Pierce (A. H.) - 19

Pitman (C. M.) 14

Pleydell-Bouverie (E. O.) 14
Pole (W.) - - 17

Pollock (W. H.) - 13, 40
Poole(W.H.andMrs.) 36
Poore (G. V.) - - 40
Pope (W. H.) - 15

Powell (E.) 7

Powys (Mrs. P. L.) - 10
Praeger (S. Rosamond) 33
Prevost (C.) - 13

Pritchett (R. T.) - 14
Proctor (R. A.) - 17, 30

Raine (Rev. James) - 6

Ramal (W.) - 24

Randolph (C. F.) - 7

Rankin (R.) - 8, 25

Ransome (Cvril) - 3, 8

Raymond (W.) 28

Reid(S.J.) - 9

Rhoades (J.) - 23

Rice (S. P.) - 12

Rich (A.) - 23

Richardson (C.) - 13, 15

Richmond (Ennis) - 19

Rickaby (Rev. John) 19

- (Rev. Joseph) - 19
Ridley (Sir E.) - 22

- (Lady Alice) - 28
Riley (J. W.) - 24
Roberts (E. P.) 33
Roget (Peter M.) - 20, 31
Rolls (Hon. C. S.) - 13
Romanes (G. J.) 10, 19,21,24

- (Mrs. G. J.) - 10
Ronalds (A.) - 17
Roosevelt (T.) - 6
Ross (Martin) - 28
Rossetti (Maria Fran-

cesca) - 40

Rotheram (M. A.) - 36

Rowe (R. P. P.) 14

Russell (Lady)- 10

Saintsbury (G.) 15

Salomons (Sir D.) - 13
Sandars (T. C.) 18

Sanders (E. K.) 9

Savage- Armstrong(G.F.)25
Scott-Montagu

(Hon. J.) 13

Seebohm (F.) - - 8, 10
Selous (F. C.) - - 12, 17
Senior (W.) - - 14, 15
Seth-Smith (C. E.) - 14
Seton-Karr - 8

Sewell (Elizabeth M.) 28
Shadwell (A.) - 40

Shakespeare - 25

Shand (A I.) - - 15
Shaw (W. A.) - 8

Shearman (M.) - 12, 13
Sheehan (P. A.) 28

Sheppard (E.) -
Sinclair (A.) - 14

Skrine (F. H.) - - 9
Smith (C. Fell) - 10

- (R. Bosworth) - 8
-(T. C.) - 5

Smith(W.P.Haskett) 12
Somerville (E.) 28

Sophocles - 23

Soulsby(Lucy H.) 40

Southey (R.) - 40

Spahr (C. B.) - 20

Spedding(J.) 9,

Spender (A. E.)
Stanley (Bishop)
Stebbing (W.) - - 10.
Steel (A. G.) -
Stephen (Leslie)
Stephens (H. Morse)
Sternberg (Count

Adalbert) -
Stevens (R. W.)
Stevenson (R. L.) 25, 2f
Storr (F.) -
Stuart-Wortley(A.J.)
Stubbs (J. W.)-
Suffolk & Berkshire

(Earl of) -
Sullivan (Sir E.)
Sully (James) -
Sutherland (A. and G.)

- (Alex.) - 19, 4

-(G.) •

Suttner (B. von)
Swan (M.)

Swinburne (A. J.) -
Symes (J. E.) -

Tait(J.) - - -
Tallentyre (S. G.) -
Tappan (E. M.)
Taylor (Col. Meadows)

Tebbutt (C. G.) 14

Terry (C. S.) - - 10

Thomas (J. W.) 19
Thomson (H. C.) -

Thornhill (W. J.) - 23

Thornton (T. H.) - 10

Todd (A.) - 8

Tout (T. F.) - 7

Toynbee (A.) - 20
Trevelyan (Sir G. O.)

6, 7, 8, 9, 10

(G. M.) - - 7, 8

Trollope (Anthony)- 29

Turner (ii. G.) 40

Tyndall (J.) - 9, 12
Tyrrell (R. Y.) - -22,23

Unwin (R.) 40

Upton(F.K.and Bertha) 33

Van Dyke (J. C.) -
' Veritas ' -
Virgil

Wagner (R.) -
Wakeman (H. O.) -
Walford (L. B.)
Wallas (Graham)
(Mrs.' Graham) -

37
5
23

Walpole (Sir Spencer) 8, 10

(Horace) 10

Walrond (Col. H.) - 12

Walsingham (Lord)- 14

Ward ( Mrs. W.) - 29

Warwick (Countess of) 40

Watson (A. E. T.) - 14

(G. L.) - 14

Weathers (J.) - 40
Webb (Mr. and Mrs.

Sidney) - 20

- (Judge T.) 40
-(T. E.) - -19,23

Weber (A.) 19

Weir (Capt. R.) 14
Wellington (Duchess of) 37

West (B. B.) - 29

Weyman (Stanley) - 29
Whately(Archbishop) 17,19

Whitelaw (R.) - 23

WhittalKSirJ. W. )- 40

Wilkins (G.) - 23

-(W. H.) - 3

Willard (A. R.) 37

Willich(C. M.) 31

Witham (T. M.) 14

Wood (Rev. J. G.) - 31

Wood-Martin (W. G.) 22

Wyatt (A. J.) - 24

Wylie (J. H.) - 8

Yeats (S. Levett) - 29
Zeller(E.) - - 19

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "James VI and the Gowrie mystery"

See other formats